Search results

This paper aims to identify and systematically summarize the relevant research on metaphors that are used to explain gender inequalities in the organizational context.

The researchers conducted a systematic literature review using bibliometric techniques and content analysis.

The systematic literature review identified a total of 1,269 papers in 688 journals written by 2,441 authors. The first paper was published in 1971 and the publication growth can be observed in the five decades analyzed. The Gender in Management: An International Journal, was the journal that published more papers about this thematic. Michelle Ryan was the most influential researcher regarding the number of papers and citations she had. The content analysis performed with the 27 most influential papers showed 4 research streams (metaphors; gender and leadership; challenges, stereotypes and toxic environment; and gender in the academy). Concerning the metaphors explored in those papers, the glass ceiling is the most prominent. Furthermore, 26 kinds of barriers were identified regarding the challenges that women face to reach positions of power.

The scrutiny of the metaphors and barriers enable access to what is being a hindrance to female progression in the organizational structure. So, this study may instrumentalize organizations and women to improve gender diversity practices in the workplace.

The value of the paper lays in the extensive literature review, using a bibliometric approach and content analysis.

This paper aims to investigate the phenomenon of the glass cliff, whereby women are more likely than men to be placed in precarious leadership positions. Men's and women's reactions to this subtle form of gender discrimination are examined, the identity processes involved, and the implications for organisations who must manage this change in the gender make‐up of their workforce.

The paper is qualitative analysis of participants’ spontaneous explanations for the glass cliff, after having read about the phenomenon on an online news web site.

The research demonstrates clear differences in men's and women's reactions to the glass cliff. While women were more likely to acknowledge the existence of the glass cliff and recognise its danger, unfairness, and prevalence for women, men were more likely to question the validity of research into the glass cliff, downplaying the dangers. These patterns were mirrored in the explanations that individuals generated. While women were most likely to explain the glass cliff in terms of pernicious processes such as a lack of alternative opportunities, sexism, or men's ingroup favouritism, men were most likely to favour largely benign interpretations, such as women's suitability for difficult leadership tasks, the need for strategic decision‐making, or company factors unrelated to gender.

This research examines people's reactions to a new form of subtle sexism in the workplace which allows one to develop a more thorough theoretical understanding of the phenomenon and of the likely impact of practical interventions designed to help eliminate discriminatory appointment practices.

Not enough is known about the challenges faced by women professionals who possess the credentials, skills and knowledge that would allow them to be considered, alongside their male counterparts, for top‐rank positions. While, statistically, figures show an increase in women's representation in the Science, Engineering and Technology domain, academic research is yet to explore in greater depth both the reasons for women's continuing under‐representation at senior levels and their work experiences. This paper sets out to discuss this issue.

The paper examines the concept of the glass cliff, which seeks to explain what happens to women as they advance to senior positions. The analysis is based on qualitative research on women managers in the SET domain in the UK. Using career mapping and in‐depth ethnographic interviews, it discusses two case studies of senior women based at a leading multinational IT company with a range of supportive diversity schemes.

The investigation illustrates some of the opportunities offered, barriers raised and ways in which those interviewed sought to overcome them.

While specific in its focus, the study demonstrates the importance of understanding how women make sense of their careers and use organisational initiatives. The article also highlights the need to inspect the effectiveness of such programmes in particular work‐settings in order to identify best practices, and to draw effective equal opportunities policies.

The article presents further evidence to support the idea that women's representation at top‐ranking levels is fraught with difficulties and calls for fine‐tuning of both policy design and implementation and academic research.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the glass ceiling, but does this metaphor fully describe the experiences of women today? Recent research being conducted at the University of Exeter has identified a further barrier that women must conquer in order to succeed.

Looks at “the glass ceiling” over a 20‐year period.

Extending the metaphor of the glass ceiling, we describe the phenomenon of the glass cliff whereby women are more likely to occupy risky or precarious leadership roles than are men.

Takes the glass ceiling into the twenty‐first century. Identifies current challenges facing women now they are in the workforce.

This chapter reflects on xCHANGE, a month-long festival marking International Women's Day (IWD) at Birmingham City University, UK. The author first problematizes expectations of IWD and then outlines the origins of the festival, detailing both practical aspects and program content. The chapter then considers the festival through a lens of “power geometry” (Massey, 1993) in which female academics are positioned in distinct ways in relation to flows and interconnections of power within the university. Does the xCHANGE festival disrupt or merely reflect this power geometry? Does it create conditions for women to thrive in academia?

I reexamine the conflicting results in Frank, Lynch, and Rego (2009) and Lennox, Lisowsky, and Pittman (2013). Frank et al. (2009) conclude that firms can manage book income upward and taxable income downward in the same period, implying a positive relation between aggressive book and tax reporting. Lennox et al. (2013) conclude the relation is negative and aggressive book reporting informs users that aggressive tax reporting is less likely. I identify four key differences in the research designs across the two studies, including measures of aggressive book reporting, measures of aggressive tax reporting, sample time periods, and empirical models. I systematically examine whether each of these differences is responsible for the conflicting results by altering the key difference while holding other factors as constant as possible. I find the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting is driven by the measure of aggressive book reporting, as the relation is positive for some subsets of firms and negative for others. Firms accused of financial statement fraud have a negative relation while nonfraud firms exhibit a positive relation. Using discretionary accruals, I also look for, but do not find a “pivot point” in the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting. I provide a better understanding of the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting by identifying research design choices that are responsible for prior results. I show that measures of both discretionary accruals and financial statement fraud are necessary to gain a more complete picture of the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting.