Search results

This paper aims to explore the relationship between workplace gender diversity among peers and management aspirations among male and female employees. It focuses on whether gender diversity influences men and women’s management aspirations.

The study builds on cross-sectional survey data from the Danish public sector.

Results shows that in mixed-gender workplaces, male employees are less likely to express management aspirations than male employees in mono-gender workplaces, but female employees in mixed-gender workplaces express management aspirations to the same – low – degree as female employees in mono-gender workplaces. All in all, the findings show that gender differences in career aspirations are not just a matter of individual preferences and/or macro-structural factors but also a matter of factors at organizational level. The findings suggest both positive and negative implications of gender diversity, and hence problematize a – rather common – simplistic celebration of gender diversity. First of all, gender diversity seems to counteract the fertilization of rigid stereotypes of men and hence prevents some men from being pushed into management positions and a career ladder they perhaps do not want to be placed at in the first place.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

The findings seem to identify that the challenge of secure a large and qualified pool of potential managers might be even extra challeging for managers in gender-diverse organisations.

A more nuanced view of the implications of gender diversity based on a basic argument of gender-asymmetry. Furthermore, the study are build on a unique dataset that allows to study the implications of gender diversity across a wide range of occupational setting and hence control for occupation specific characteristics.

The purpose was to find out if greater gender diversity affected male and female aspirations to be managers

Hypothesis 1A was that: “Workplace gender diversity of peers is positively correlated with management aspirations among women, but negatively among men.” Hypothesis 1B was that: “Workplace gender diversity of peers is positively correlated with perceived career possibilities among women, but negatively among men.” The authors studied questionnaires from 2,818 respondents from 13 occupations

The data only partially supported Hypothesis 1A. Results confirmed that it was negatively correlated with men, who had a 4.6% point lower probability of being interested in a management position than males in less diverse organizations. But there was no positive effect of gender diversity on women, in contradiction of expectations. Meanwhile, Hypothesis 1B was rejected.

The authors advise organizations to look for advice in studies of management recruitment strategies for solutions to these problems. As women represent the largest pool of available resources in public organizations, they say it would be wise to focus more energy on them.

We enjoin stakeholder theory, radical-cultural feminist theory, and critical race theory with critical intersectionality to critique findings which suggest that there still are significantly more men than women on nearly every Fortune 500 board of directors, with only six corporations featuring (50-50%) gender equity in 2017. Also, only 4.1% board members are women of color and 9% are men of color. Sixty-five people of color on corporate boards serve on more than one board. This means there are even fewer people of color filling top corporate leadership positions than meets the eye. The proposed alternative course of action is for boards of directors to follow the example of the small handful of peer Fortune 500 corporations that have achieved greater levels of board diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This article outlines the theoretical foundations of the research contributions of this edited collection about “Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations.” First, the sociological understanding of the basic concepts of diversity and discrimination is described and the current state of research is introduced. Second, national and organizational contextual conditions and risk factors that shape discrimination experiences and the management of diversity in research teams and organizations are presented. Third, the questions and research approaches of the individual contributions to this edited collection are presented.

This study aims to investigate whether board gender diversity is associated with corporate sustainability performance and whether industry-level product market competition moderates the effect of board gender diversity on corporate sustainability performance.

This study uses international data extracted from global ESG data set from Thomson Reuters (Refinitiv) database. Using data of 23,137 firm-year observations from 37 countries, the authors perform regression analyses to examine the hypotheses.

The findings show that firms with high board gender diversity exhibit high corporate sustainability performance. The authors also find firms in highly competitive industries to have low corporate sustainability performance. In highly competitive industries, the positive relationship between board gender diversity and corporate sustainability performance is weakened. The results are robust to various specification tests such as alternative measures for corporate sustainability performance, board gender diversity, product market competition and also the use of propensity score matching to address endogeneity issue. Overall, the results support the prediction that board diversity and product market competition play a substitutive role in influencing corporate sustainability performance.

This study offers empirical evidence that the appointment of female directors is a useful way to improve a firm’s corporate sustainability performance, hence, providing significant benefits in terms of stakeholders’ values and corporate reputation.

This study provides useful insights to investors and policymakers that intense industry competition might mitigate the role of board governance, particularly board gender diversity, in enhancing corporate sustainability performance.

Using an international data set, where the observations operate in various market and institutional differences, this study is able to extricate the positive impact of board gender diversity and product market competition on corporate sustainability performance. This study corroborates evidence that sustainability strategy and initiatives are reflections of integrated factors, including corporate governance as internal driver and market forces faced by firms as external driver.

Recent research identifies several attributes that lead to the value proposition of a diversity-training program: corporate engagement in diversity training; participants' perceptions of how such programs aid their peers; self-analysis of participants in training; and perceptions regarding the benefit of diversity training for subordinates. The aim of this paper is to test a corresponding four-antecedent model of the value of diversity training from the point of view of hotel managers.

A survey instrument was devised and sent to a random sample of hotel properties that asked managers questions related to the value of diversity training. Multiple regression analysis and t-tests were used as methods of data analyses.

Results from 242 responses returned by managers of 96 hotels indicated that managers perceive themselves and the corporate executives to significantly add value to the organization through diversity training. Furthermore, ethnic minority managers do not value diversity training significantly more highly than their non-minority counterparts do; similarly, little difference exists between genders on the four indicators of diversity-training efficacy.

This study examined only one aspect of diversity management – diversity training. Among other limitations are the small sample and low response rates, which made it difficult to compare ethnic groups to one another.

Through this study, managers' perceptions about which groups of employees add value following diversity training are presented. The findings are likely to help hospitality corporations to implement diversity training more efficiently.

This study indicates that hotel managers value diversity training and suggests the need for organizations to understand how to prioritize various organizational levels for such training.

This study aims to unpack the progress of board gender diversity among the 3,000 largest US listed firms by market capitalization (i.e. Russell 3000 Index). This study extrapolates four classifications of firms based on the number of women in the boardroom: zero women, one or two women, three plus women and gender balanced. The purpose of this study is to examine where progress has and has not been made, why firms plateau and an agenda for the future.

This study first provides a summative overview of the literature on the benefits of board gender diversity. It then examines progress according to the four classifications, each of which have theoretical underpinnings for whether or not firms can reap the strategic benefits of gender-diverse boardrooms.

Several indices of US publicly traded companies now have women holding between 30% and 33% of the seats in the boardroom. By examining the spread of women on boards according to the four classifications, this study extrapolates three key insights: firms experiencing tokenism (i.e. one or two women in the boardroom) do not have enough women to reap the strategic benefits of diverse boardrooms; firms that have reached a critical mass (three women in the boardroom) are at an impasse and may risk plateauing; and gender-balanced firms are elevated to the status of being role models for other firms. Calls for action and associated action plans accompany these insights.

This study reminds managers and directors of the strategic benefits of gender-diverse boards and offers three critical insights that boards can use to classify what stage they are at on the path toward board gender equality. Based on their classification, calls for action and action plans offer guidance to firms.

This study shifts away from focusing on the average percentage of board seats held by women across all firms and offers new insights on the progress that firms have made according to the number of women in their boardroom.

Collegiality is often discussed and analyzed as a challenged form of governance, a form of working that used to function well in universities prior to the emergence of contemporary and modern forms of governance. This seems to suggest that collegiality used to dominate, while other forms of governance are now taking over. The papers in volume 86 of this special issue support the notion of challenged collegiality, but also show that for the most part, nostalgic notions of “the good old days” are neither true nor helpful if we are to revitalize academic collegiality. After examining whether a golden age of collegiality ever existed, we discuss why collegiality matters. Exploring what are often described as limitations or “dark sides” of collegiality, we address four such “dark sides” related to slow decision-making, conflicts, parochialism, and diversity. This is followed by a discussion of how these limitations may be handled and what measures must be taken to maintain and develop collegiality. With a brief summary of the remaining papers under two headings, “Maintaining collegiality” and “Revitalizing collegiality,” we preview the rest of this volume.