平等政策悖论:管理者如何执行性别平等相关政策的性别差异

IF 8.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Administrative Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1177/00018392231174235
Vanessa M. Conzon
{"title":"平等政策悖论:管理者如何执行性别平等相关政策的性别差异","authors":"Vanessa M. Conzon","doi":"10.1177/00018392231174235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on data from an ethnographic study of the introduction and implementation of a flexible work policy intended in part to improve gender equality at a STEM professional organization, I develop grounded theory on how managers’ gender shapes their implementation of such initiatives. I identify an equality policy paradox in which women managers, who openly support gender equality, are more likely than men managers to limit the policy. This apparent contradiction between intentions and actions is reconciled through an interactional role-based mechanism. Specifically, in this setting women managers encounter barriers to developing technical expertise, client relations, and respected authority. They respond by engaging extensively with subordinates, which allows them to effectively manage by brokering information (as an alternative to technical and client-facing tasks) and cultivating cooperation (as an alternative to formal authority). The policy undermines these interdependent activities; reflecting this, women managers generally oppose it. Men managers tend not to experience these constraints, and they focus on technical and client-related tasks that are largely independent of subordinates. The policy maintains these activities; reflecting this, they implement it. By identifying the equality policy paradox and the mechanism underlying it, this study advances theory on managers’ implementation of equality-related practices and policies as well as theory on gender and management.","PeriodicalId":7203,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Science Quarterly","volume":"68 1","pages":"648 - 690"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Equality Policy Paradox: Gender Differences in How Managers Implement Gender Equality–Related Policies\",\"authors\":\"Vanessa M. Conzon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00018392231174235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing on data from an ethnographic study of the introduction and implementation of a flexible work policy intended in part to improve gender equality at a STEM professional organization, I develop grounded theory on how managers’ gender shapes their implementation of such initiatives. I identify an equality policy paradox in which women managers, who openly support gender equality, are more likely than men managers to limit the policy. This apparent contradiction between intentions and actions is reconciled through an interactional role-based mechanism. Specifically, in this setting women managers encounter barriers to developing technical expertise, client relations, and respected authority. They respond by engaging extensively with subordinates, which allows them to effectively manage by brokering information (as an alternative to technical and client-facing tasks) and cultivating cooperation (as an alternative to formal authority). The policy undermines these interdependent activities; reflecting this, women managers generally oppose it. Men managers tend not to experience these constraints, and they focus on technical and client-related tasks that are largely independent of subordinates. The policy maintains these activities; reflecting this, they implement it. By identifying the equality policy paradox and the mechanism underlying it, this study advances theory on managers’ implementation of equality-related practices and policies as well as theory on gender and management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"648 - 690\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231174235\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Administrative Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231174235","RegionNum":1,"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: 1

摘要

根据一项关于灵活工作政策的引入和实施的民族志研究的数据,我研究了管理者的性别如何影响他们对这些举措的实施,这在一定程度上是为了改善STEM专业组织的性别平等。我发现了一个平等政策悖论,即公开支持性别平等的女性管理者比男性管理者更有可能限制这项政策。这种意图和行动之间的明显矛盾通过基于角色的互动机制得以调和。具体来说,在这种情况下,女性管理人员在发展技术专长、客户关系和受人尊敬的权威方面遇到了障碍。他们通过与下属广泛接触来做出回应,这使他们能够通过中介信息(作为技术和面向客户的任务的替代方案)和培养合作(作为正式权威的替代方案)来有效地进行管理。该政策破坏了这些相互依存的活动;反映这一点的是,女性经理普遍反对这样做。男性经理往往不会经历这些限制,他们专注于技术和客户相关的任务,这些任务在很大程度上与下属无关。政策维持这些活动;反映这一点,他们执行它。通过识别平等政策悖论及其背后的机制,本研究提出了管理者实施平等相关实践和政策的理论以及性别与管理的理论。
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
The Equality Policy Paradox: Gender Differences in How Managers Implement Gender Equality–Related Policies
Drawing on data from an ethnographic study of the introduction and implementation of a flexible work policy intended in part to improve gender equality at a STEM professional organization, I develop grounded theory on how managers’ gender shapes their implementation of such initiatives. I identify an equality policy paradox in which women managers, who openly support gender equality, are more likely than men managers to limit the policy. This apparent contradiction between intentions and actions is reconciled through an interactional role-based mechanism. Specifically, in this setting women managers encounter barriers to developing technical expertise, client relations, and respected authority. They respond by engaging extensively with subordinates, which allows them to effectively manage by brokering information (as an alternative to technical and client-facing tasks) and cultivating cooperation (as an alternative to formal authority). The policy undermines these interdependent activities; reflecting this, women managers generally oppose it. Men managers tend not to experience these constraints, and they focus on technical and client-related tasks that are largely independent of subordinates. The policy maintains these activities; reflecting this, they implement it. By identifying the equality policy paradox and the mechanism underlying it, this study advances theory on managers’ implementation of equality-related practices and policies as well as theory on gender and management.
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
20.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Administrative Science Quarterly, under the ownership and management of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has consistently been a pioneer in organizational studies since the inception of the field. As a premier journal, it consistently features the finest theoretical and empirical papers derived from dissertations, along with the latest contributions from well-established scholars. Additionally, the journal showcases interdisciplinary work in organizational theory and offers insightful book reviews.
期刊最新文献
This Is Why I Leave: Race and Voluntary Departure The Dynamics of Inferential Interpretation in Experiential Learning: Deciphering Hidden Goals from Ambiguous Experience Christina Lubinski. Navigating Nationalism in Global Enterprise: A Century of Indo-German Business Relations Falling Fortunes: The Contingent and Asymmetric Effect of Rankings on Organizational Outcomes Michel Anteby. The Interloper: Lessons from Resistance in the Field
×
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