Search results

In our final article, we hear the story of how Susan Kersley went from being a retired doctor to a life coach for doctors. Both her experiences as a doctor and her time spent adjusting to life after medicine taught Susan many valuable lessons, which she felt able to use to help others plan and enjoy a fruitful retirement. Susan's story should inspire everyone to not accept the label of ‘older person’ or ‘retired’ as a sole definition of oneself, but rather as the routes to reinvention.

Are women held back or holding back? Do women choose their jobs/careers or are they structurally or normatively constrained? The purpose of this paper is to shed fresh light on these questions and contribute to an on‐going debate that has essentially focused on the extent to which part‐time work is women's choice, the role of structural and organisational constraints and the role of men in excluding women.

The paper uses data from interviews with 80 working women – both full‐time and part‐time – performing diverse work roles in a range of organisations in the south east of England.

It was found that many women do not make strategic job choices, rather they often “fall into” jobs that happen to be available to them. Some would not have aspired to their present jobs without male encouragement; many report incidents of male exclusion; and virtually all either know or suspect that they are paid less than comparable men. Those working reduced hours enjoy that facility, yet they are aware that reduced hours and senior roles are seen as incompatible. In short, they recognise both the positive and negative aspects of their jobs, whether they work full or part‐time, whether they work in male‐dominated or female‐dominated occupations, and whatever their position in the organisational hierarchy. Accordingly, the paper argues that the concept of “satisficing”, i.e. a decision which is good enough but not optimal, is a more appropriate way to view women's working lives than are either choice or constraint theories.

There is an ongoing, and often polarised, debate between those who maintain that women choose whether to give preference to work or home/family and others who maintain that women, far from being self‐determining actors, are constrained structurally and normatively. Rather than supporting these choice or constraint theories, this paper argues that “satisficing” is a more appropriate and nuanced concept to explain women's working lives.

Looks at the 2000 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference held at the University of Cardiff in Wales on 6/7 September 2000. Spotlights the 76 or so presentations within and shows that these are in many, differing, areas across management research from: retail finance; precarious jobs and decisions; methodological lessons from feminism; call centre experience and disability discrimination. These and all points east and west are covered and laid out in a simple, abstract style, including, where applicable, references, endnotes and bibliography in an easy‐to‐follow manner. Summarizes each paper and also gives conclusions where needed, in a comfortable modern format.

Women make up approximately 47% of the workforce and 51% of hospitality employees but account for 70% of travel buying decisions. Even with these high statistics, women are still underrepresented in many high-level positions. This paper aims to evaluate the financial effects of diversity in top paying management positions within US hospitality companies from 2006 to 2018 and also evaluate the change in female representation from the Great Recession and the #metoo scandal.

Firm performance and diversity were studied using fixed effect and random effect models due to the panel nature of the data. ANOVAs and t-tests were conducted to determine the change in female representation.

On average, companies report 5.55 top paying executives and only 0.75 of them are female. Results show that earnings before interest and taxes, and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization are both significantly higher with 15–30% diversity and even higher with 30–50% diversity. After the Great Recession, hospitality companies significantly increased the percentage of females in top positions from 11.5 to 14.1%, while resorts increased female representation from 7.5 to 12.2% after the #metoo scandal.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first known study to evaluate gender diversity in top hospitality executives and not just female representation. This is also the first paper to evaluate the effect of the #metoo scandal on hospitality firms’ percentage of females in top executive positions.