Search results

This study aims to analyze the connection between institutional isomorphic pressures and both women serving on boards and women’s influence on boards within large American firms.

This study examines a longitudinal panel data set of all Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 organizations across a seven-year period from 2009 to 2015.

The analyses affirm that institutional isomorphic pressures impact the prevalence and influence of women on boards. Evidence suggests that coercive and normative pressures strongly impact the number of women serving as corporate directors, whereas the power of women directors is linked only to mimetic pressures.

The research suggests that to increase the number of women serving as directors, the industry must first increase the overall number of women serving in senior management roles. Once women directors gain a critical mass of three women on the board, the association with the total number of women directors, the number of boards upon which they concurrently serve, the power of women directors being selected to board leadership and the influence of women directors increase.

This paper extends existing board diversity work by examining institutional pressures at the international, national and firm levels. By examining the relationship between coercive, normative and mimetic pressures on both the prevalence of women on boards and the influence of women on boards, the authors illuminate certain mechanisms that shape the likelihood of board appointment and placement in more powerful positions.

The current study aims to analyze the connection between gender disparities and employment in senior legal roles within large American firms. Specifically, this study seeks to uncover whether legal positions in large corporations reproduce inequalities in representation and wages, or whether these roles provide women with a pathway to greater gender parity.

Investigating a large data set of over 2,000 USA public companies over a ten-year period, this study examines the representation of women in senior legal roles, the likelihood of women’s appointment to those roles as a function of the gender composition of the industry and if a wage gap exists between men and women serving in the top legal roles in corporate America.

Findings suggest that rather than moving women closer to gender parity, in-house counsel positions reproduce many of the same inequalities found in large law firms, particularly with regard to representation in senior ranks and compensation.

Research has illustrated that women experience disadvantage in terms of representation, wages and advancement in large law firms and in corporate executive suites. Women lawyers who occupy senior executive roles, however, may benefit relative to their non-legal counterparts given their education and expertise. Their credentials and relative status may contribute in reducing or eliminating gender disparities. This study extends current research by investigating this potential path to greater gender equality.

This study aims to examine how gender variation in trans identities shape exposure to bias and discrimination. The authors then examine how trans identities intersect with race/ethnicity, education and social class to shape exposure risk to bias, discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

The authors use data from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey with 24,391 trans-identified respondents. To account for the nested nature of trans people in state contexts, the authors use two-level logistic multilevel models. The authors are guided by Puwar’s bodies out of place as the theoretical grounding for this study.

The authors find significant differences in how trans women and men experience discrimination. The authors also find differences in race, education and social class. Finally, the presence of anti-discrimination policies presents mixed results.

The authors’ analysis reveals important differences in trans workers’ exposure to discrimination based on gender identity, social class, race/ethnicity and policy context, and draws upon a rich and large data set.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the conditions under which racial/ethnic minorities are promoted to top leadership positions in American corporations. In addition to testing the glass cliff theory for racial/ethnic minorities, the paper also develops and test two additional theoretical mechanisms: bold moves and the savior effect. While the glass cliff theory predicts racial/ethnic minorities will be promoted to struggling firms, the bold moves theory predicts the opposite, that racial/ethnic minorities will be promoted to strong firms. The savior effect predicts that minority CEOs will be replaced by white male leaders if firm performance struggles during their tenure.

This paper relies on conditional logistic regression to analyze all CEO transitions among Fortune 500 companies over a 15-year period.

Consistent with the bold moves thesis but contrary to the predictions of glass cliff theory, the results suggest that racial/ethnic minorities are more likely than white executives to be promoted CEO in strongly performing firms. As predicted by the savior effect theory, the paper also finds that when firm performance struggles under the leadership of racial/minority CEOs, these leaders are likely to be replaced by white CEOs.

The findings contradict theory of the glass cliff and suggest additional mechanisms that shape the promotion probability of minority leaders.

Race and ethnicity shape promotion and replacement decisions for top leadership positions in important ways. While minority leaders are not set up to fail, as glass cliff theory would predict, the authors do find that confidence in the leadership of minority leaders may be tenuous. To overcome the risks of replacement of minority leaders, firms should seek to eliminate bias by allowing minority leaders enough time and resources to overcome declines in firm performance and increase the transparency of replacement decisions.

This is one of the first studies to test the glass cliff thesis with regard to racial/ethnic minorities. The paper also develops and tests two new mechanisms related to leader succession: bold moves and the savior effect.

Women remain underrepresented in academic STEM, especially at the highest ranks. While much attention has focused on early-career attrition, mid-career advancement is still largely understudied and undocumented. The purpose of this paper is to analyze gender differences in advancement to full professor within academic STEM at a mid-size public doctoral university in the western USA, before and after the National Science Foundation (NSF)-ADVANCE Program (2003–2008).

Using faculty demographics and promotion data between 2008 and 2014, combined with faculty responses to two waves of a climate survey, the magnitude and longevity of the impact of ADVANCE on mid-career faculty advancement across gender is evaluated.

This study documents increased representation of women in all ranks within the STEM colleges, including that of full professor due to ADVANCE efforts. It also demonstrates the role of greater gender awareness and formalization of procedures in reducing the variability in the time as associate professor until promotion to full professor for all faculty members, while also shrinking gender disparities in career attainment. As a result of the codification of the post-tenure review timeline toward promotion, more recently hired faculty are promoted more swiftly and consistently, irrespective of gender. Post-ADVANCE, both male and female faculty members express a greater understanding of and confidence in the promotion process and no longer see it as either a hurdle or source of gender inequality in upward career mobility.

While data were collected at a single university, demographics and career experiences by women mirror those at other research universities. This study shows that within a given institution-specific governance structure, long-lasting effects on faculty career trajectories can be achieved, by focusing efforts on creating greater transparency in expectations and necessary steps toward promotion, by reducing barriers to information flown, by standardizing and codifying the promotion process, and by actively engaging administrators as collaborators and change agents in the transformation process.

This study addresses mid-career dynamics and potential mechanisms that explain gender gaps in the promotion to full professor, a largely understudied aspect of gender disparities in career attainment within STEM. It shows how institutional policy changes, intended to alleviate gender disparities, can benefit the career trajectories of all faculty members. Specifically, this study highlights the crucial role of codifying procedures and responsibilities in neutralizing subjectivity and inconsistencies in promotion outcomes due to varying departmental climates.

This study aims to identify the main research development on board diversity and offers a quantitative synopsis of key themes and contributors, knowledge gaps and provides directions for further work.

Using a bibliometric analysis, the authors assess the patterns in global board diversity research based on co-occurrences of researchers’ keywords and publication outputs of 991 articles from the Scopus database. Also, the co-citation network analysis was performed to assess the intellectual structure of board diversity research.

According to the keyword analysis, the authors found that researchers focus on the gender diversity of the boardroom while ignoring the cognitive diversity and other aspects of demographic diversity such as educational, ethnic, age, nationality, experience, background and tenure, pointing to the need for further work to consider other diversity attributes and the interaction between them. Additionally, board diversity research related to (but not limited to) payout policy, cash holding, initial public offerings, small–medium enterprises and financial institutions is limited.

This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the development of board diversity research (using a large archival database) and identifies the common construct as well as the potential opportunities for future research directions.

The authors wanted to find out if women in-house lawyers were treated more equitably than their counterparts in law firms and, therefore, reached higher ranks more often.

The authors examined 10 years of data about public companies in the ExecuComp dataset. The information includes name, age, gender, job category and numerous compensation measures. Public companies must report their top five earners. The authors narrowed their focus to 2,154 lawyers of whom 1,851 were men and 303 were women.

Analysis supported hypothesis 1, showing women are underrepresented in senior legal roles in large corporations. Hypothesis 2, however, was not supported. It was expected that women would be more likely to hold senior positions in female-dominated industries, but this was not the case. Finally, hypothesis 3 was not supported either. It suggested in-house women counsel would earn comparable compensation to their male counterparts. But analysis showed women earned 92.6pc of men earn and their bonuses were only 73.2pc of men’s.

The authors say the research has important practical lessons for companies. Many of the remedies for gender disparities in law firms apply also to in-house counsel, they say. A primary mechanism is to integrate more women into senior leadership positions. This will tend to lead to reductions in compensation disparities, as well as greater accountability and transparency.

This paper aims to challenge the cisnormative and binary assumptions that underpin the management and gender scholarship. Introducing and contextualising the contributions that comprise this special issue, this paper critically reflects on some of the principal developments in management research on trans* and intersex people in the workplace and anticipates what future scholarship in this area might entail.

A critical approach is adopted to interrogate the prevailing cisnormative and binary approach adopted by management and gender scholars.

The key finding is the persistence of cisnormativity and normative gender and sex binarism in academic knowledge production and in society more widely, which appear to have hindered how management and gender scholars have routinely failed to conceptualise and foreground the array of diverse genders and sexes.

This paper foregrounds the workplace experiences of trans* and intersex people, which have been neglected by management researchers. By positioning intersexuality as an important topic of management research, this paper breaks the silence that has enwrapped intersex issues in gender and management scholarship. There are still unanswered questions and issues that demand future research from academics who are interested in addressing cisnormativity in the workplace and problematising the sex and gender binaries that sustain it.

We are three teacher educators – Christi, Bethney, and Abby – representing literacy, educational leadership, and special education, who have collaborated in self-studies of our teacher education practices (S-STEP) over a period of five academic years. Through this collaborative engagement, we came to recognize the similarities and differences in our language and values found within each of our individual disciplinary cultures. It was through the juxtaposition of studying ourselves alongside of that of our colleagues that we further generated a shared culture and common understandings. In our chapter, we explore the ways in which self-study enabled collaboration with teacher educators representing different disciplines. The research brought to light specific disciplinary values, assumptions, and terminology that, when articulated and examined among critical friends, facilitated our ability to both broaden and deepen our individual understandings of teacher education practices in light of each other’s diverse disciplinary perspectives.