老板何时不再关心组织公正?管理权力与男性和女性管理者对工作场所性别不平等的评价

IF 4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Group & Organization Management Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1177/10596011241267334
Anca M. Miron, Nyla R. Branscombe, Madison Malcore, Michael Tylor Losser, Danica Kulibert, Christopher L. Groves
{"title":"老板何时不再关心组织公正?管理权力与男性和女性管理者对工作场所性别不平等的评价","authors":"Anca M. Miron, Nyla R. Branscombe, Madison Malcore, Michael Tylor Losser, Danica Kulibert, Christopher L. Groves","doi":"10.1177/10596011241267334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When do male and female managers stop caring about workplace gender inequality and, instead, engage in actions that maintain the status quo? We examined the differences in male and female managers’ appraisals of workplace inequality and the role of power in their efforts to enact organizational justice. Specifically, we tested whether managers’ injustice standards are a function of their managerial power and gender and whether these standards mediate the effect of managerial power on managers’ organizational injustice appraisals and attitudes. An injustice standard is the amount of evidence needed to conclude that workplace gender wage inequality is unfair to female employees. Power was operationalized as economic advantage (i.e., having a higher salary than the salary of female workers; Studies 1 and 2) and as organizational charge (i.e., having managerial responsibilities; Study 2). Managers reported either their ingroup standards (evidentiary injustice thresholds they as members of their gender group set; Ingroup Focus condition) or outgroup standards (injustice thresholds they estimate members of the other gender group set, Study 1; or injustice thresholds they estimated disadvantaged women in the workplace set, Study 2; Outgroup Focus condition). In Study 1 ( N = 268) and Study 2 ( N = 389), injustice standards increase as a function of power for both male and female managers. Injustice standards mediated the effects of power on managers’ resistance to efforts to reduce workplace inequality, legitimizations of inequality, and attitudes toward workplace diversity policies. Different strategies for reducing workplace injustice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When do bosses stop caring about organizational justice? Managerial power and male versus female managers’ appraisals of workplace gender inequality\",\"authors\":\"Anca M. Miron, Nyla R. Branscombe, Madison Malcore, Michael Tylor Losser, Danica Kulibert, Christopher L. Groves\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10596011241267334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When do male and female managers stop caring about workplace gender inequality and, instead, engage in actions that maintain the status quo? We examined the differences in male and female managers’ appraisals of workplace inequality and the role of power in their efforts to enact organizational justice. Specifically, we tested whether managers’ injustice standards are a function of their managerial power and gender and whether these standards mediate the effect of managerial power on managers’ organizational injustice appraisals and attitudes. An injustice standard is the amount of evidence needed to conclude that workplace gender wage inequality is unfair to female employees. Power was operationalized as economic advantage (i.e., having a higher salary than the salary of female workers; Studies 1 and 2) and as organizational charge (i.e., having managerial responsibilities; Study 2). Managers reported either their ingroup standards (evidentiary injustice thresholds they as members of their gender group set; Ingroup Focus condition) or outgroup standards (injustice thresholds they estimate members of the other gender group set, Study 1; or injustice thresholds they estimated disadvantaged women in the workplace set, Study 2; Outgroup Focus condition). In Study 1 ( N = 268) and Study 2 ( N = 389), injustice standards increase as a function of power for both male and female managers. Injustice standards mediated the effects of power on managers’ resistance to efforts to reduce workplace inequality, legitimizations of inequality, and attitudes toward workplace diversity policies. Different strategies for reducing workplace injustice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group & Organization Management\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group & Organization Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241267334\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group & Organization Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241267334","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

男性和女性管理者何时会停止关注工作场所的性别不平等,转而采取维持现状的行动?我们研究了男性和女性管理者对工作场所不平等评价的差异,以及权力在他们实现组织公正的努力中所扮演的角色。具体来说,我们检验了管理者的不公正标准是否是其管理权力和性别的函数,以及这些标准是否会调节管理权力对管理者的组织不公正评价和态度的影响。不公正标准是指得出工作场所性别工资不平等对女性员工不公平这一结论所需的证据数量。权力可操作为经济优势(即工资高于女性员工工资;研究 1 和研究 2)和组织职责(即承担管理职责;研究 2)。管理人员报告了他们的内群体标准(他们作为其性别群体成员设定的不公正阈值证据;内群体关注条件)或外群体标准(他们估计的另一性别群体成员设定的不公正阈值,研究 1;或他们估计的工作场所弱势女性设定的不公正阈值,研究 2;外群体关注条件)。在研究 1(N = 268)和研究 2(N = 389)中,男性和女性管理者的不公正标准随着权力的增加而增加。不公正标准调节了权力对管理者抵制减少工作场所不平等、不平等合法化以及对工作场所多元化政策的态度的影响。本文讨论了减少工作场所不公正现象的不同策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
When do bosses stop caring about organizational justice? Managerial power and male versus female managers’ appraisals of workplace gender inequality
When do male and female managers stop caring about workplace gender inequality and, instead, engage in actions that maintain the status quo? We examined the differences in male and female managers’ appraisals of workplace inequality and the role of power in their efforts to enact organizational justice. Specifically, we tested whether managers’ injustice standards are a function of their managerial power and gender and whether these standards mediate the effect of managerial power on managers’ organizational injustice appraisals and attitudes. An injustice standard is the amount of evidence needed to conclude that workplace gender wage inequality is unfair to female employees. Power was operationalized as economic advantage (i.e., having a higher salary than the salary of female workers; Studies 1 and 2) and as organizational charge (i.e., having managerial responsibilities; Study 2). Managers reported either their ingroup standards (evidentiary injustice thresholds they as members of their gender group set; Ingroup Focus condition) or outgroup standards (injustice thresholds they estimate members of the other gender group set, Study 1; or injustice thresholds they estimated disadvantaged women in the workplace set, Study 2; Outgroup Focus condition). In Study 1 ( N = 268) and Study 2 ( N = 389), injustice standards increase as a function of power for both male and female managers. Injustice standards mediated the effects of power on managers’ resistance to efforts to reduce workplace inequality, legitimizations of inequality, and attitudes toward workplace diversity policies. Different strategies for reducing workplace injustice are discussed.
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
8.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Group & Organization Management (GOM) publishes the work of scholars and professionals who extend management and organization theory and address the implications of this for practitioners. Innovation, conceptual sophistication, methodological rigor, and cutting-edge scholarship are the driving principles. Topics include teams, group processes, leadership, organizational behavior, organizational theory, strategic management, organizational communication, gender and diversity, cross-cultural analysis, and organizational development and change, but all articles dealing with individual, group, organizational and/or environmental dimensions are appropriate.
期刊最新文献
Drivers for Nominating First Women Executives: Empirical Evidence From Japanese Firms The Value of Small Samples to Groups and Teams Research: Accumulating Knowledge across Philosophies of Science It’s About Time! Understanding the Dynamic Team Process-Performance Relationship Using Micro- and Macroscale Time Lenses Women’s Double Penalty During Telework: A Mixed Method Investigation of the Gender Effect of Interruptions Between Work and Childcare When Does Entrepreneurs’ Impression Management Enhance Their Networking Performance? The Cross-Level Moderating Role of Collective Altruism
×
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