Search results

This paper aims to examine how the work of Ruth Simpson and the subsequent collaborations have contributed to understanding of the gendered constructions of meritocracy, as they apply in organizations.

This paper is a personal analysis of the work of Ruth Simpson and her colleagues and the way in which her work has resonated with me and influenced our joint collaborations. The key questions our work has addressed, both when we work together and with others, include how merit is constructed. Is it gendered? How does it influence organizational outcomes? How is merit recognized? Is merit “performed”? Key theoretical constructs and frameworks are used to address these issues; including, gendered organizational structures and regimes (Acker, 1990; Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Gherardi and Poggio, 2001), the gendered nature of meritocracy (Thornton, 2007; Sommerlad, 2012, Brink van den and Benschop, 2012) and the performance and “stickiness” of meritocracy (Ashcraft, 2013, Bergman and Chalkley, 2007).

The paper reveals alternative ways of interrogating the discourse of meritocracy. Usually taken for granted, as an objective and fair mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources, the concept is examined and found to be much more contingent, unstable and subjective than had previously been considered. The gender-based implications of these findings are assessed.

The implications of the work are to broaden the field and develop frameworks within which we can understand more clearly the way in which merit is understood. Through the work we have done, we have highlighted that merit far from being an objective measure of ability is deeply rooted in contextual and we argue, gendered understandings of contribution, worth and desert.

The practical implications are that firms can no longer rely on discourses of meritocracy to evidence their commitment to equality and fairness. They will need to go further to show a direct link between fairness in the design of processes as well as fairness in the outcomes of these processes. Until these objectives are more clearly articulated, we should continue to shine a light on embedded inequalities.

The social implications are that a call for wider societal understanding of meritocracy should be made. Rather than simply accepting discourses of merit, key constituent groups who have not benefitted from the prevailing orthodoxy should seek to examine the concept and draw their own conclusions. In this manner, the author develops societal mechanisms that do not just purport to ensure equality of outcome for all; they achieve it.

This paper offers an examination of the development of ideas, how we can learn from the work of influential scholars within the field and, in turn, through collaboration, advance understanding.

This editorial introduces the papers within the special issue and outlines their contribution to the emerging and evolving study of sexuality and sexual orientation in organisation and management studies.

A review of some key themes within the literature on sexuality and sexual orientation is provided prior to drawing out key points within the submitted papers and considering how they contribute to this literature.

These six papers make an important contribution to the fast‐changing and evolving study of sexuality and sexual orientation in organisations and the development and implementation of equality and diversity policy and practice.

The editorial refers to papers presented at the Equality Diversity and Inclusion Conference held in Istanbul, July 2009, which included a stream entitled: “Spirals of silence? Tackling the ‘invisibility’ of the sexual orientation strand and sexuality in academic research and in organisation equality and diversity policy and practice” which can lead to reflections on the processes of voice and silence as these pertain to the discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation issues in academic organisations and at academic and practitioner conferences.

The paper aims to focus on the activism of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people and their allies within work organisations. Specifically, it explores whether LGBT trade union groups and company employee network groups provide mechanisms for visibility, voice and activism for LGBT employees within UK organisations.

This paper is based on in‐depth interviews with 149 LGB employees within 14 UK case study organisations. These took place within four local authorities, three fire and emergency services, two national voluntary sector organisations and five private sector organisations between 2004‐2006. In addition, 55 in‐depth interviews with management, trade union and LGBT company employee network group representatives within the organisations plus analysis of company and trade union web sites and publications provided information on organisation policy and practice. Interviews were conducted using a semi‐structured interview schedule and the data collected were coded and analysed with the assistance of Nvivo software.

This paper outlines the history of LGBT trade union groups and company employee network groups within the UK. It found that both LGBT trade union groups and company employee network groups have provided important and at times complimentary mechanisms for visibility, community and voice for LGBT employees. However, the paper recognised that LGBT company network groups were relatively “new actors” within the case study organisations and suggests that some early gains may have been those which companies were willing to concede. It concludes that more research will be needed to see whether both LGBT trade union and company employee network groups can maintain their momentum during a time of economic recession as equality and diversity budgets are squeezed.

A decline in trade unions and increasing non‐unionisation despite labour movement revitalisation campaigns has meant that there is growing interest in whether employee network groups can provide meaningful avenues for “employee voice” in both unionised and non‐unionised workplaces. The paper addresses a gap in knowledge by focusing firstly on LGBT activism in the workplace and secondly on the rationale for and development of LGBT trade union and company employee network groups as mechanisms for “employee voice” for LGBT employees.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the triggers to the development of sexual orientation diversity policy and practice in the UK private sector, based on the perspectives of those “championing” sexual orientation diversity work.

The paper is based on 22 in‐depth key informant interviews which can be broken down as follows: diversity specialists (5), management (6, of whom 3 were sexual orientation senior management “champions” in their organisations), trade union (3) and LGBT network group representatives (8), as well as access to company and trade union web sites and publications. Interviews sought to trace the history of sexual orientation equality and diversity work, development of structures, policies and practices as well as triggers and barriers to progress and areas of innovation.

Recent literature on equality and diversity in the British national context has sought to explore the implications of a social justice versus a business case driven equality and diversity agenda. This paper considers that this dichotomous analysis can be unhelpful. Within the private sector case studies, the difference between the two approaches was not clear‐cut. The corporate social responsibility agenda seemed to offer a broader vision for sexual orientation diversity work in a global context. It promised a more activist awareness of international human rights standards, stakeholder involvement plus links between employee and customer rights and concerns.

The paper addresses a gap in knowledge regarding sexual orientation diversity management in the UK private sector. It also considers the links between corporate social responsibility and sexual orientation diversity management.

This paper discusses the factors to consider when designing studies to measure hiring discrimination against transgender job applicants.

The paper builds on academic literature related to hiring discrimination and transgender employment to build a detailed discussion of the numerous factors and issues inherent in hiring discrimination against transgender job applicants. By isolating and describing a number of relevant considerations, the paper aims to act as a guide for future studies to build upon.

Three types of hiring discrimination studies are discussed: correspondence tests, in-person experiments and student cohort experiments. Three main categories of factors relevant to an experiment’s design are then discussed: the legal context, industry/role factors and transgender population-specific factors. A flow-chart detailing the research design decision-making process is provided.

The discussion within this paper will act as a reference and a guide for researchers seeking to address the dearth of empirical studies in the literature. The list is not exhaustive; while a number of factors relevant to transgender-specific studies are identified, there may be more that could affect an experiment's design.

Hiring discrimination against transgender people has been recorded in many surveys, but there is little empirical measurement of this discrimination. To the author's knowledge, this paper is the first to examine the experimental design decisions related to transgender hiring discrimination. In doing so, it provides contributions for two primary audiences: those researching transgender employment issues but who have never conducted a study measuring hiring discrimination; and those who have previously conducted studies on hiring discrimination, but have not done so with reference to transgender job applicants.