Search results

Before addressing these three issues, I provide some background on the key theoretical approaches to legitimacy employed in this volume: two legitimacy theories in social psychology and institutional theory in organizational analysis. Virtually every contributor draws upon at least one of these theories; several authors draw upon two of these theories, offering a way to bridge them and/or apply them to a substantive concern.

In this paper, I show how a consideration of legitimacy processes is of theoretical use in addressing two current issues in status research. First, I investigate under what conditions the contrast between the sex composition of a work group and the sex composition of an organization’s authority structure may trigger the salience of gender status in task groups. I argue that this contrast will make gender status salient when an evaluation from an authority figure outside the group creates inconsistency and uncertainty in the current status structure within the group. Delegitimation of a superior is one such process that produces this inconsistency and uncertainty. Second, I examine under what conditions status position compared to identity will more likely stimulate behavior among work group members. I argue that the legitimation of the superior and the group’s status order reduce the likelihood that group members will pursue status inconsistent, identity behaviors. Delegitimation, however, increases opportunities for acting in identity consistent ways and reduces the costs for doing so, thus enhancing the likelihood of identity-based behaviors.

Processes of legitimacy and justice pervade work organizations. Here we focus on how legitimacy (collective sources of support for an authority) and procedural justice (use of fair procedures) affect how individuals interpret and respond to situations involving unfair outcomes such as underpayment. We draw upon the legitimacy perspective of Walker and Zelditch and the procedural justice approach of Tyler to develop two new models, one in which the two factors constitute objective and independent contextual elements and one in which perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice are reciprocal. Both models have implications for understanding fairness and compliance in organizations.

We examine how authorities' use of fair decision-making procedures and power benevolently shape workers' impressions of them as competent and warm, which serve as a mechanism whereby authorities' behaviors shape workers' emotional responses. We investigate how the role of these impressions differs depending on authority gender and consider whether emotional responses differ for male and female subordinates.

We conducted a between-subjects experimental vignette study in which we manipulate an authority's behaviors and gender. We use multigroup mediation analysis to test our predictions.

Authorities who employ procedural justice and benevolent power elicit reports of heightened positive emotion experiences and intended displays and reports of reduced negative emotion experiences and intended displays. These behaviors also enhance views of authorities as competent and warm. The mediating role of impressions differs by authority gender. Authority behaviors prompt reports of positive emotions through conveying impressions that align with authorities' gender stereotypes (competence for men, warmth for women). In contrast, warmth impressions mediate effects of behaviors on reported negative emotions when authorities are men, whereas when authorities are women, benevolent power use directly reduces reported negative experience, and procedural justice reduces negative display. Female respondents are more likely to report positive emotion experience and display toward male authorities and negative display toward female authorities.

By examining competence and warmth impressions as mechanisms, we gain insight into how the process by which authority behaviors affect worker emotions is gendered and shed light on micro-level dynamics contributing to gender inequality at work.

In this paper, we examine the effects of legitimation and delegitimation of female leaders in male- and female-dominated organizations on leader behavior toward their subordinates. Drawing upon status and legitimacy theories, we argue that delegitimation represents one event that makes gender stereotypes salient in different organizational contexts, and by this means affects leader–subordinate interaction. Gender stereotypes will be more salient in male- than in female-dominated organizations, but only when female leaders are delegitimated. Specifically, we hypothesize that deauthorized female leaders will exhibit more deferential and less directive behavior than authorized female leaders, and this effect will be stronger in male- than in female-dominated organizations. Authorized female leaders, however, will express a similar amount of deferential and directive behavior, regardless of organizational sex composition. To test these hypotheses, we created a laboratory experiment with simulated organizations. Results are mixed. Deauthorized leaders are marginally more deferential than authorized leaders, and this effect is stronger in male-dominated organizations; authorized leaders express similar amounts of deferential behavior in both types of organizations. Yet, leaders are more directive in male- than in female-dominated organizations, whether they are deauthorized or authorized. We discuss the implications of these results and future directions for this research.

Although cultural beliefs about gender differences in emotional experience and expression are pervasive, empirical evidence does not always bear out those beliefs. This disjuncture has led scholars to argue for the examination of specific emotions in specific contexts in order to understand more clearly the conditions under which gender differences emerge. Heeding this call, we focus on the justice context, reviewing and investigating men's and women's feelings about and emotional displays regarding distributive justice. Using a vignette study, we specifically examine how gender and the contextual factors of procedural justice, legitimacy of the decision-maker, and gender of the decision-maker affect emotional responses of injustice victims. We argue that a focus on the gender combination of actors in a situation moves the study of gender and emotions beyond the assumption that gender-specific cultural beliefs dictate individual's feelings across situations. Our findings show few gender differences in the experience and expression of anger, resentment, and satisfaction. Rather, contextual factors, including the gender of the decision-maker, had stronger effects on emotional responses than gender of the victim. In our justice situation, then, context matters more than gender in understanding emotional responses.

Teamwork represents a democratic logic that may contradict the bureaucratic logic characterizing many organizations. I develop arguments based on new institutional theory suggesting that such a contradiction threatens a team’s legitimacy. My study of 71 teams lends support for two claims that capture a legitimacy paradox confronting teams: (1) Egalitarian work processes do correspond to more effective interactions within teams, however (2) To the extent that egalitarianism is uncommon in the organization in which a team is embedded, external evaluations of team effectiveness are less favorable. I discuss the implications of these arguments for subsequent research on organizational teamwork.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of living in “green” dorms on students’ environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs), in concert with other factors, including individual identity and social context in the form of behavior modeling by peers.

The sample of 243 consists of students who resided in two newly constructed, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold-certified dorms and two conventional dorms. The authors analyze the data collected at the end of the respondents’ freshmen year at Emory University using seemingly unrelated regression analysis.

Findings indicate that students who live in “green” dorms engage in more recycling and advocacy behaviors than students in conventional dorms. Environmental identity and perceived behavior modeling by peers positively affect recycling, advocacy and conservation. Furthermore, results indicate an interaction between dorm and identity whereby students with weak environmental identities experience a greater increase in ERBs from living in green dorms than do students with strong environmental identities.

These results show that universities do promote students’ ERBs through the construction of green residence halls. Universities can also facilitate ERBs by encouraging students to develop strong environmental identities and fostering opportunities for them to engage in ERBs with their peers.

This study is valuable for both its practical implications and the theoretical implications for predicting ERBs. The findings indicate that to predict ERBs, it is necessary to consider both contextual and individual level factors.