为什么我们没有发现组织公正观念中的性别差异?以证据为基础,提高司法研究的包容性

IF 6.2 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Organizational Behavior Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1002/job.2797
Nicole Strah, Deborah E. Rupp, Ruodan Shao, Eden King, Daniel Skarlicki
{"title":"为什么我们没有发现组织公正观念中的性别差异?以证据为基础,提高司法研究的包容性","authors":"Nicole Strah,&nbsp;Deborah E. Rupp,&nbsp;Ruodan Shao,&nbsp;Eden King,&nbsp;Daniel Skarlicki","doi":"10.1002/job.2797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While research from various disciplines shows that women continue to disproportionately face workplace injustices compared to men, OB research has not found meaningful gender differences in self-reported workplace justice perceptions. This paradox has received little attention in the otherwise well-established organizational justice literature. We applied an abductive approach to investigate this paradox by a) confirming its existence, and b) proposing and empirically evaluating seven possible explanations for its existence, using multiple methods and seven distinct datasets. We found that this paradox is unlikely to be explained by measurement invariance, different expectations for treatment, whether the context is male-dominated, differences across years, or differences in how justice perceptions are formed. We did find, however, that when using alternate measurement approaches, women recalled gender-based injustice experiences, reported them as having occurred more frequently than did men, and reported them as having been negatively impactful on their lives/careers. We conclude that the most promising explanation for this paradox is that extant organizational justice measures are deficient for the purpose of capturing variance accountable to gender-based injustice. This highlights the need for more inclusive approaches for the measurement and application of organizational justice, especially when studying the relationship between gender and organizational justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48450,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Behavior","volume":"45 7","pages":"1117-1146"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/job.2797","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why have we not detected gender differences in organizational justice perceptions?! An evidenced-based argument for increasing inclusivity within justice research\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Strah,&nbsp;Deborah E. Rupp,&nbsp;Ruodan Shao,&nbsp;Eden King,&nbsp;Daniel Skarlicki\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/job.2797\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While research from various disciplines shows that women continue to disproportionately face workplace injustices compared to men, OB research has not found meaningful gender differences in self-reported workplace justice perceptions. This paradox has received little attention in the otherwise well-established organizational justice literature. We applied an abductive approach to investigate this paradox by a) confirming its existence, and b) proposing and empirically evaluating seven possible explanations for its existence, using multiple methods and seven distinct datasets. We found that this paradox is unlikely to be explained by measurement invariance, different expectations for treatment, whether the context is male-dominated, differences across years, or differences in how justice perceptions are formed. We did find, however, that when using alternate measurement approaches, women recalled gender-based injustice experiences, reported them as having occurred more frequently than did men, and reported them as having been negatively impactful on their lives/careers. We conclude that the most promising explanation for this paradox is that extant organizational justice measures are deficient for the purpose of capturing variance accountable to gender-based injustice. This highlights the need for more inclusive approaches for the measurement and application of organizational justice, especially when studying the relationship between gender and organizational justice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Organizational Behavior\",\"volume\":\"45 7\",\"pages\":\"1117-1146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/job.2797\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Organizational Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2797\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2797","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然各学科的研究表明,与男性相比,女性在工作场所面临的不公正现象仍然不成比例,但 OB 研究却没有发现在自我报告的工作场所公正感方面存在有意义的性别差异。这一悖论在组织公正文献中很少受到关注。我们采用归纳法对这一悖论进行了研究:a)证实了悖论的存在;b)使用多种方法和七个不同的数据集,提出了七种可能的解释并对其进行了实证评估。我们发现,这一悖论不太可能用测量不变性、对待遇的不同期望、背景是否以男性为主、不同年份的差异或正义感形成方式的差异来解释。不过,我们确实发现,在使用其他测量方法时,女性会回忆起基于性别的不公正经历,她们报告说这些经历比男性发生得更频繁,并且报告说这些经历对她们的生活/职业生涯产生了负面影响。我们的结论是,对这一悖论最有希望的解释是,现有的组织公正测量方法在捕捉性别不公正的差异方面存在不足。这突出表明,在测量和应用组织公正时,尤其是在研究性别与组织公正之间的关系时,需要采用更具包容性的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Why have we not detected gender differences in organizational justice perceptions?! An evidenced-based argument for increasing inclusivity within justice research

While research from various disciplines shows that women continue to disproportionately face workplace injustices compared to men, OB research has not found meaningful gender differences in self-reported workplace justice perceptions. This paradox has received little attention in the otherwise well-established organizational justice literature. We applied an abductive approach to investigate this paradox by a) confirming its existence, and b) proposing and empirically evaluating seven possible explanations for its existence, using multiple methods and seven distinct datasets. We found that this paradox is unlikely to be explained by measurement invariance, different expectations for treatment, whether the context is male-dominated, differences across years, or differences in how justice perceptions are formed. We did find, however, that when using alternate measurement approaches, women recalled gender-based injustice experiences, reported them as having occurred more frequently than did men, and reported them as having been negatively impactful on their lives/careers. We conclude that the most promising explanation for this paradox is that extant organizational justice measures are deficient for the purpose of capturing variance accountable to gender-based injustice. This highlights the need for more inclusive approaches for the measurement and application of organizational justice, especially when studying the relationship between gender and organizational justice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Behavior aims to publish empirical reports and theoretical reviews of research in the field of organizational behavior, wherever in the world that work is conducted. The journal will focus on research and theory in all topics associated with organizational behavior within and across individual, group and organizational levels of analysis, including: -At the individual level: personality, perception, beliefs, attitudes, values, motivation, career behavior, stress, emotions, judgment, and commitment. -At the group level: size, composition, structure, leadership, power, group affect, and politics. -At the organizational level: structure, change, goal-setting, creativity, and human resource management policies and practices. -Across levels: decision-making, performance, job satisfaction, turnover and absenteeism, diversity, careers and career development, equal opportunities, work-life balance, identification, organizational culture and climate, inter-organizational processes, and multi-national and cross-national issues. -Research methodologies in studies of organizational behavior.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Getting away “Scott” (but not Susan) free: The effects of safety-specific abusive supervision and supervisor gender on follower attributions and safety outcomes How and when do frequent daily work interruptions contribute to or undermine daily job satisfaction? A stress appraisal perspective Algorithmic management in the gig economy: A systematic review and research integration To escape the pain: Paths to voluntary turnover, social pain, and influences on the selection of a new job role
×
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