Search results

While scholarship has identified the bias that maternal women (Arena et al., 2023; Grandey et al., 2020) and racial minority employees (King et al., in press) endure, few have taken aim at understanding how these identity characteristics might combine to concomitantly shape work experiences. Drawing from stigma theory (Goffman, 1963), the primary purpose of our chapter is to examine how the stereotypes of maternity might interact with race-based stereotypes to shape the experiences of working women. In doing so, we will be able to identify which stereotypes of maternity (i.e., incompetence or disloyalty; Grandey et al., 2020) might be exacerbated or weakened when varying race-based stereotypes are considered. After reviewing the potential for intersecting stereotypes, we then argue that mothers might experience different work and health outcomes – both pre- and postpartum – based on their race. We close by providing insight for future scholars and identify additional identity characteristics that may shape mothers' workplace experiences.

Food security reflects the amount of access and availability of healthy, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food and represents a significant problem both nationally and globally. Individuals and families that are considered food insecure experience disparities and inequities in food access and availability and insufficiency in the amount and kind of food required for a healthy lifestyle. We see high food insecurity as a violation of one's rights to a healthy and secure life and a denial of the opportunity for individuals, families, and communities to realize their full potential in society. Thus, we examine food insecurity from three distinct but related perspectives: social responsibility, social justice, and social sustainability. We then explore the link between food insecurity and the “built environment” as needed to shape research, practice, and sustainable solutions in the future.

Organizational research on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is at times siloed; the experience of one minoritized or underrepresented group is treated as completely separate and different from the experience of another group and thus research separately. For example, there are terms that are studied only in the context of one group, and a different term is used to study a very similar (or identical) concept among a different group. Indeed, there are many unique experiences that specific minority groups encounter at work. Because of this end, minority groups should not be fully categorized together, and their individual should not be erased. However, there are shared experiences that many or all minorities experience at work, whether they are a gender minority, racial minority, or a member of any other minoritized group. Recognizing these shared experiences can help scholars develop a deeper understanding of what it's like to be minoritized or underrepresented at work, and therefore help to better serve these communities. To this end, our chapter highlights three such shared but unique minority experiences: three experiences that are common across all minority groups but operationalize slightly differently in different populations. The first experience we discuss is discrimination, as all minorities typically experience some form of negative differential treatment at work. The second experience we discuss is identity management, as many minorities need to actively think about how they present their minority identity to others (regardless of if their identity is “concealable” or not). Finally, we discuss strength through adversity, as many minorities argue that their minority identity is a source of strength and an area that benefits them at work. We conclude the chapter with a call toward intraminority solidarity, suggesting that recognizing shared experiences and working together can help build better workplaces for all minority employees.

Discrimination is a widespread problem in organizations and has been linked to a variety of negative personal and organizational outcomes (e.g., Hughes & Dodge, 1997; Jones et al., 2016). Confronting is one way to assuage these harmful outcomes. However, several factors can influence whether these confrontation behaviors take place. First, for individuals to confront, they must recognize the discrimination, interpret it as an emergency, take responsibility, identify a response, and decide to intervene (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008). In addition, factors like identity, type of prejudice, confrontation tone, and relationship to the perpetrator can influence decisions to confront, as well as the outcomes associated with these confrontation behaviors. Overall, this chapter reviews the literature on the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators associated with confrontation. Moreover, this chapter provides recommendations for organizations and future researchers based on the reported findings.

We examine experimentally the extent to which three potential tax authority interventions encourage the reporting of tax fraud to tax authorities and how two types of guilt feelings are involved in this decision. Using a sample of 728 adult taxpayers in the United States, we find that a cash award, a prosocial award and a moral suasion message positively influence whistleblowing intentions and that the moral suasion effect is mediated by intrapsychic guilt (when an individual violates their moral values) and interpersonal guilt (when one's actions cause harm to another). The combination of a cash award and moral suasion message results in the greatest likelihood of tax whistleblowing. Our research contributes to the tax whistleblowing literature by providing evidence of the efficacy of potential interventions and also extends literature on the role of moral emotions by showing the relevance of intrapsychic and interpersonal guilt to the tax fraud reporting decision.

Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.

This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.

The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.

This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.

A growing body of research finds a consistently negative relationship between medical cannabis access and aggregate measures of opioid use. Nothing is currently known about the types of opioids that are being most impacted by cannabis access. Using the Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021) difference-in-differences (DID) estimator for the main analysis and data on all opioid shipments to every United States (US) pharmacy from 2006 to 2014, the authors found no evidence of overall change in the total number of morphine milligram equivalent (MME) units of opioids shipped to pharmacies, following the opening of medical cannabis dispensaries. However, across all opioids, the authors found a reduction in the highest MME dosage strengths (8.8% decrease in 50–89 MME doses and 11.3% decrease in 90+ MME doses). This decrease appears to be driven predominantly by commonly diverted opioids, where the authors found a reduction in the highest MME dosage strengths (12.2% in 50–89 MME doses and 13.8% in 90+ MME doses). Further, the authors see a 6.0% increase in low-to-moderate dose opioids (0–49 MMEs). This is consistent with patients using cannabis concomitantly with opioids in order to achieve a lower opioids dose.