Payal N Sharma, Rachel E Sturm, Brett H Neely, Danielle V Tussing, Bradley L Kirkman
{"title":"Too womanly or not manly enough? A review of work consequences experienced by counter-normative men","authors":"Payal N Sharma, Rachel E Sturm, Brett H Neely, Danielle V Tussing, Bradley L Kirkman","doi":"10.1177/00187267251340602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades, precarious manhood theory has suggested that men are expected to prove their masculinity, given that it is a hard-won, tenuous state requiring continual social proof and constant validation. However, there is an emergent body of research that challenges these tenets and indicates that some men do not adhere to gendered expectations of their biological sex at work—which we refer to as counter-normativity. We conducted a systematic review to organize and synthesize this literature, thereby extending precarious manhood theory. Our review suggests the hegemonically masculine roots of precarious manhood theory are not uniformly idealized or revered as previously theorized, because counter-normative men do not necessarily value enacting the associated norms. In addition, women are often the punitive party, which is of note given that men’s counter-normativity is typically described as their acting like a woman, and is purportedly one of the worst things a man can do. Finally, although counter-normative men are largely punished in their organizations for breaking gender stereotypes, there are instances where they experience positive or neutral outcomes. We conclude by guiding forthcoming scholarship on masculinity at work, suggesting important implications for managing gender complexities in today’s work settings.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267251340602","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
For decades, precarious manhood theory has suggested that men are expected to prove their masculinity, given that it is a hard-won, tenuous state requiring continual social proof and constant validation. However, there is an emergent body of research that challenges these tenets and indicates that some men do not adhere to gendered expectations of their biological sex at work—which we refer to as counter-normativity. We conducted a systematic review to organize and synthesize this literature, thereby extending precarious manhood theory. Our review suggests the hegemonically masculine roots of precarious manhood theory are not uniformly idealized or revered as previously theorized, because counter-normative men do not necessarily value enacting the associated norms. In addition, women are often the punitive party, which is of note given that men’s counter-normativity is typically described as their acting like a woman, and is purportedly one of the worst things a man can do. Finally, although counter-normative men are largely punished in their organizations for breaking gender stereotypes, there are instances where they experience positive or neutral outcomes. We conclude by guiding forthcoming scholarship on masculinity at work, suggesting important implications for managing gender complexities in today’s work settings.
期刊介绍:
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.