{"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}
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.
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.