Search results

This paper aims to focus on the gap between the very high prevalence of sexual harassment in the tourism and hospitality industry (the phenomenon) and the limited academic discussion about it (academic knowledge), and suggests ways to bridge this gap.

The gap between phenomenon and knowledge is identified by comparing official data regarding sexual harassment in the tourism and hospitality industry with a content analysis of the academic literature. Tribe’s (2006) knowledge force-field model is used to analyze this gap.

The five truth barriers identified by Tribe (2006), namely, person, rules, position, ends and ideology, are confirmed by the data. Five counter-forces – triangulation, interdisciplinary, collaboration, humanism and critical praxis – are developed to counter these truth barriers.

The five counter-forces offer practical solutions for research, higher education programs and the tourism industry. They demonstrate ways to reduce the high prevalence of sexual harassment in the industry and improve the working conditions of employees.

Underpinned by Tribe’s conceptual model, the paper identifies and analyzes a relative silence regarding sexual harassment in the tourism and hospitality academy in contrast to its prevalence in the industry. Additionally, it advances Tribe’s model by identifying five truth-facilitating forces. Further, it offers a research agenda for revealing hidden topics and/or biased knowledge by understanding the relationship between tourism and hospitality phenomena and academic knowledge.

Social identity shaped by sexual orientation is unique because it is invisible (as compared to age and some ethnic identities); a circumstance that may activate homophobia perceptions when an individual’s sexual orientation becomes fodder for speculation. Chapter 7 enjoins a wide variety of related issues in order to sharpen a focus on sex in the workplace; love and sex in the literal sense, as well as social identity shaped by sexual orientation, sex-based discrimination, sex as political action, and important ways that sex intersects with other social identity dimensions including age, gender, ethnicity/race, and socioeconomic status. An important distinction made throughout the chapter is the degree that protections are offered to various groups with regard to sex and work. These protections (or lack of them) are critical for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the transgendered, and queer or questioning people who consider whether or not to disclose information about their sexual identity at work.

While many multinational corporations have adopted policies or guidelines and implemented programs to communicate an inclusive perspective on sexual identity in the workplace and to promote diversity training for all employees, too few workplaces around the globe offer legal protections for workers relative to sexual identity. People are subject to workplace discrimination whether they are gay or lesbian, or simply appear to be so and sexual harassment according to gender remains a fixture of organizations. To explore the organizational research on sexuality, Chapter 7 attends to subthemes of: love, lust, and sex-based harassment in the workplace; how organizations address sexual orientation and sex-based harassment in the workplace; managing one’s sexual identity in the workplace; and intersectionalities of sexual identity with ethnicity, gender, and social class.

Drawing on social exchange theory, this study aims to investigate the relation of customer sexual harassment (CSH) and customer-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors (customer-oriented OCB), as well as the mediation of customer–employee exchange (CEX) and the moderation of hostile attribution bias.

The hypotheses were examined through a field study performed in six hotels in three Chinese cities and an experimental study.

The results revealed that CSH undermined the quality of CEX, leading employees to withdraw from customer-oriented OCB. Additionally, the hostile attribution bias of service employees reinforced the direct relationship between CSH and CEX and its indirect relationship with customer-oriented OCB via CEX.

The findings suggest that hospitality organizations should endeavor to reduce the occurrence of CSH, and that by valuing and encouraging the development of high-quality CEX, they can mitigate its detrimental effects. Special attention should also be paid to hospitality employees holding strong hostile attribution bias.

First, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first studies to explore the influence of CSH on customer-oriented OCB among hotel employees. In addition, examining the effect of CSH from the social exchange perspective represents a new theoretical approach. The finding also contributes to the literature on CEX by identifying an important antecedent. Finally, by investigating hostile attribution bias as a moderator, this research provides insights into how individual differences moderate the destructive influence of CSH.

There is commonly said to be a sexual bias within the legal system. As Anderson (1976, p.350) points out: “The notion of a justice system whose agents typically exhibit a “chivalrous” attitude towards female criminals (ie. because of their sex women are afforded more lenient treatment than men) has been set forth by several writers.” One such writer is Pollak (1950, p.151), who claims that: “Men hate to accuse women and thus indirectly to send them to their punishment, police officers dislike to arrest them, district attorneys to persecute them, judges and juries to find them guilty and so on.” Another is Cavan (1962, p.32), who writes: “…even in crime a certain degree of chivalry prevails. Some people dislike to report a woman criminal to the police and police are more likely to release women or turn a young woman over to her parents or release to a social agency than would be true for boys or men.” Others believe that there is an opposite sexual bias in the legal system. For instance, Sachs considers the various test cases in Britain on the question of whether, in law, women were to be regarded as “persons” and concludes that:

Sexual orientation and employment bias is examined in Cyprus by implementing an experiment for the period 2010-2011. The design is aimed at answering three main questions. Do gay males and lesbians face occupational access constraints and entry wage bias than comparable heterosexuals? Do gay males and lesbians benefit from providing more job-related information? Does the differential treatment between gay male/lesbian and heterosexual applicants disappear as the information of the applicants increases? The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The author sent applications to advertised vacancies and experimented with two information sets the “sexual orientation” and “information” of the potential applicants.

The estimations suggest that gay male and lesbian applicants face significant bias than heterosexual applicants. Moreover, both heterosexual and gay male/lesbian applicants gain by providing more job-related information. However, the estimations suggest that the informational premium for sexual orientation minorities could not reduce the discriminatory patterns.

The current results indicate that discrimination against sexual orientation minorities in the Cypriot labour market is a matter of preference, not the result of limited information. One strategy the Cypriot government may employ is to try to affect public opinion and people's attitudes towards sexual orientation minorities.

This is the first nationwide field experiment in the Cypriot labour market and contributes to the literature as it is the first field study on sexual orientation which tries to disentangle statistical from taste-based discrimination in the labour market.

This paper aims to investigate consumer reactions to minority retail employees. The paper argues that despite the persistence of racism and homophobia in society, the vast majority of the population is strongly against these forms of discrimination. Because of the profound negativity of such behavior, the study hypothesizes that consumers will be motivated to see themselves unequivocally as individuals free of prejudice. As a result, rather than treating all people equally, the study proposes that consumers will overcompensate and exhibit favoritism toward a retail employee when the latter is a member of a minority group.

This study presents ten studies in which participants evaluated employees who were a member of a minority or majority group. Studies 1a–1d use sexual orientation to contrast reactions to majority or minority bank managers in four countries (USÀ, Germany, Italy and South Korea), whereas Studies 1e and 1f use ethnicity (White vs Black) to examine the same question (UK and Canada). Study 1g offers a single-paper meta-analysis, testing the robustness of the observed effect. Studies 2 and 3 examine the roles of political ideology and its associated values, and Study 4 examines choice of an advisor in an online, but consequential setting.

Across several contexts and countries, the study finds a consistent pro-minority bias in evaluations of service employees. The study show that, in the USA, this bias is prevalent among liberals, but not among conservatives. This difference in the impact of political ideology is explained by adherence to traditionalism.

This paper investigates consumer reactions to gays and Blacks and do not test for consumer reactions to other minority groups. Regarding employees’ sexual orientation, the findings of this study are limited to gay men only.

To elicit favorable evaluations from customers, managers may consider the match between employees’ sexual orientation or ethnicity and consumers’ liberal beliefs. In particular, managers may want to hire people from those minority groups in areas known for their liberal values. On the other hand, the findings suggest that managers should not worry about their new recruits’ sexual orientation and ethnicity in conservative areas, because the results suggest that conservatives show no favoritism toward employees in response to their group status.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first paper in marketing investigating consumer reactions to employees who belong to minority groups. The study reports a pro-minority bias that holds across samples and countries, thereby attesting to the population validity of the hypotheses. Further, the study identifies boundary conditions of the effect of employees’ group status by identifying managerially relevant moderators (i.e. political ideology and traditionalism).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether sexual minority candidates are viewed as less likely to fit-in in their work environments than heterosexual candidates and, hence, to their being evaluated as less promotable.

Consistent with previous research, the authors used a hiring scenario where evaluators saw one of four different resumes, which varied based on candidate sexual orientation and gender, yet were equal on all factors, including candidate qualifications. The research included a pre-test and manipulation check to ensure the validity of the authors’ research design.

As the authors expected based on stigma theory, gay and lesbian candidates were more likely to be perceived as unable to fit-in than heterosexual candidates. Perceptions of a lack of fitting-in were negatively related to promotability ratings, as were beliefs about the controllability of sexual orientation. However, counter to the authors’ expectations, gay and lesbian candidates were rated more promotable than heterosexual candidates. This presents a more nuanced picture of sexual orientation discrimination than has been offered heretofore.

Previous research has suggested that gay men and lesbians may be trapped in “gay ghettos,” yet there is little if any research on evaluations of sexual minority candidates in employment decisions beyond hiring. The present study extends research on sexual orientation discrimination by investigating whether decision makers are biased against gay and lesbian candidates in promotion decisions, and the factors that are related to promotability ratings.

The goal of this study was to help explain the underrepresentation of lesbian women and gay men (LG) in senior leadership positions by examining bias in the allocation of developmental opportunities (sponsorship/coaching and challenging work assignments). It further sought to test stigma-by-association as one reason for the biased allocation of developmental opportunities.

An online experimental vignette study (N = 273) using a 2 (target gender: male vs female) by 2 (sexual orientation: LG vs heterosexual) design was conducted.

LG workers were less likely to be allocated developmental opportunities than heterosexual workers overall and relative to their same-sex heterosexual counterparts. Further, lesbian women were least likely to be allocated developmental opportunities. These effects also operated indirectly via participants concerns about stigma-by-association.

Sexual orientation and gender identity minority workers remain underrepresented in senior leadership positions and oftentimes despite having better objective qualifications. Research has begun examining bias in leader selection. This study, however, directs attention to the biased allocation of developmental opportunities which make one competitive for senior leadership positions and occur prior to leader selection. In doing so, the authors provide a baseline understanding of an important reason why LG might be underrepresented in leadership positions.

The authors aim to explore how perspective-taking and attribution of blame lead to side-taking by human resource professionals (HRPs) when making judgements and handling complaints of sexual harassment.

Employing qualitative methodology, the authors used semi-structured in-depth interviews with 35 HRPs from 30 companies in Sri Lanka. Attribution theory and perspective-taking were used as theoretical lenses.

In handling complaints of sexual harassment incidents, HRPs take the perspectives of the alleged perpetrator, complainant, or the company and attribute the blame to the alleged perpetrator or the complainant. Irrespective of the gender of the HRPs and the perspective they take, they would most often blame the female complainants due to sexual harassment myths and misperceptions and traditional sex-role beliefs. Thus, they either take the side of the alleged perpetrator or the company, explicitly/implicitly or intentionally/unintentionally.

The central originality of this research is the finding that HRPs take sides in resolving complaints of sexual harassment and perspective-taking and attribution of blame by HRPs lead to this side-taking in organisational settings.