Search results

This paper aims to test penis panic theory, which predicts that trans women will face more discrimination than trans men in some but not all situations.

Respondents were 262 American college students who were all enrolled in the same undergraduate course. They were presented with a case about coworker resistance to transgender employees' use of the workplace restrooms of their choice. Four versions of a case were randomly distributed as follows: trans woman, restroom with one toilet; trans woman, restroom with three toilets; trans man, restroom with one toilet and trans man, restroom with three toilets.

The authors observed greater discrimination against trans women compared to trans men when there was one toilet but not when there were three toilets. This supports penis panic theory.

The chief limitation was the use of American college students as respondents. The results may not generalize to practicing managers especially in other countries. Future researchers should develop a scale to measure situational discrimination against trans women. This study should be replicated in other contexts to deepen the understanding of discrimination against trans men and trans women with disabilities, as well as discrimination against nonbinary individuals who identify as neither trans men nor trans women.

Employers need to search for situations in which trans women face greater discrimination than trans men, because they can be resolved in ways that protect the rights of transgender employees no matter how transphobic their coworkers may be. Also, employers need a nuanced approach to combat discrimination that recognizes the unique perspectives of trans men, trans women and other members of the transgender community.

This is the first quantitative study of penis panic theory, and it illuminates the understanding of discrimination against transgender individuals.

The inclusion of LGBTQ + persons (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and having other sexual orientations and gender identities) is a crucial step in improving gender diversity in the workplace; however, till date, it remains a significant challenge for human resource management professionals. The current study critically examines this issue of an inclusive workplace for LGBTQ + people through a systematic review of the existing research that has empirically studied their experiences at the workplace. It also examines the resistance and challenges organizations face in LGBTQ + diversity training and provides future research avenues.

For systematically reviewing the literature, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model has been used. A total of 101 empirical studies have been reviewed.

The result shows that LGBTQ + people encounter multiple negative workplace experiences, including proximal (hiring discrimination and housing discrimination) and distal workplace discrimination (unsafe work climate, microaggressions and harassment). These aversive experiences lead to work stress while also mandating that people manage their sexual identity and style of dressing. This stress, in turn, impacts their work–family outcomes, job satisfaction and decision-making with regard to their careers.

The paper provides a holistic understanding of the aversive workplace experiences encountered by sexual minorities.

This study examines the effect of open-mindedness (OM) and humble behavior on innovation through the mediator role of learning.

A quantitative design was adopted to collect data through a questionnaire-based survey distributed to 400 employees at international oil companies operating in Iraq.

The results indicate a direct positive of learning on innovation. Hence, there is a natural and partial indirect effect of humble behavior on innovation and a full indirect impact of OM on innovation through learning.

The theoretical and practical implication of this study indicates that individual learning on innovation is vital when the workplace environment has a diversity of cultural backgrounds. Moreover, the implications of this study may contribute to determining the weakness of invention in such industries because of the effect of personal characteristics (i.e. OM and humble) on readiness to learn.

In a culturally diverse work environment, the behavior of humble and OM will have a significant impact on the intensity of individual learning, which would increase innovation in the context of the oil industry. Therefore, the essence of originality in this study is to lead the managers to pay attention to the psychological aspects of the workplace environment that require learning and innovation.

Many workers with disabilities face cultures of exclusion in the workplace, which can affect their participation in decisions, workplace engagement, job attitudes and performance. The authors explore a key indicator of engagement—perceptions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)—as it relates to disability and other marginalized identities in the workplace.

Using an online survey, legal professionals answered questions about their workplace experiences. Ordinary least squares (OLS) multivariate regression analysis with progressive adjustment was used to investigate the effect of demographic and organizational factors on perceptions of OCB.

The authors find that employees with disabilities have lower perceptions of OCB, both before and after controlling for other personal and job variables. The disability gap is cut nearly in half, however, when controlling for workplace culture measures of co-worker support and the presence of an effective diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy. Disability does not appear to interact with gender, race/ethnicity and LGBTQ + status in affecting perceptions of OCB.

The results point to the workplace barriers faced by people with disabilities that affect their perceptions of engagement, and the potential for supportive cultures to change these perceptions.

Scholarly communications, particularly, questions and answers (Q&A) present on digital scholarly platforms provide a new avenue to gain knowledge. However, several studies have raised a concern about the content anomalies in these Q&A and suggested a proper validation before utilizing them in scholarly applications such as influence analysis and content-based recommendation systems. The content anomalies are referred as disinformation in this research. The purpose of this research is firstly, to assess scholarly communications in order to identify disinformation and secondly, to help scholarly platforms determine the scholars who probably disseminate such disinformation. These scholars are referred as the probable sources of disinformation.

To identify disinformation, the proposed model deduces (1) content redundancy and contextual redundancy in questions (2) contextual nonrelevance in answers with respect to the questions and (3) quality of answers with respect to the expertise of the answering scholars. Then, the model determines the probable sources of disinformation using the statistical analysis.

The model is evaluated on ResearchGate (RG) data. Results suggest that the model efficiently identifies disinformation from scholarly communications and accurately detects the probable sources of disinformation.

Different platforms with communication portals can use this model as a regulatory mechanism to restrict the prorogation of disinformation. Scholarly platforms can use this model to generate an accurate influence assessment mechanism and also relevant recommendations for their scholars.

The existing studies majorly deal with validating the answers using statistical measures. The proposed model focuses on questions as well as answers and performs a contextual analysis using an advanced word embedding technique.