Gender and Organization Science: Introduction to a Virtual Special Issue

Isabel Fernandez-Mateo, Sarah Kaplan
{"title":"Gender and Organization Science: Introduction to a Virtual Special Issue","authors":"Isabel Fernandez-Mateo, Sarah Kaplan","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2018.1249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gendered processes and outcomes are pervasive in organizational life. They shape how individuals perceive their career prospects, which types of opportunities they pursue, how they get work done within organizations, and how they balance this work with the rest of their life. Organizations themselves also shape and are shaped by gender dynamics, from the ways they design jobs and performance evaluation systems to the assumptions managers make about individuals’ preferences and motivations. This virtual special issue collects together 14 papers published in Organization Science that challenge common understandings about the sources of gender differences in career outcomes, the effects of balancing work–life obligations, and the ways that gender dynamics play out in teams and organizations. An important insight that emerges from a comparison of these studies is that demand effects are often confused for supply effects. What looks like a supply problem—we think that women choose not to aspire to top positions or to jobs in top paying fields—might actually be a demand problem—organizations or jobs look unappealing to women because of past histories of not hiring or promoting women into leadership roles or of making work–life balance appear to be impossible. These studies suggest that essentialist explanations that attribute gendered outcomes to inherent characteristics or choices of women might be too simplistic or inaccurate. Instead, future research would benefit from examining the complex interactions between supply-side and demand-side drivers of gender inequality.","PeriodicalId":93599,"journal":{"name":"Organization science (Providence, R.I.)","volume":"24 1","pages":"1229-1236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"54","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization science (Providence, R.I.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 54

Abstract

Gendered processes and outcomes are pervasive in organizational life. They shape how individuals perceive their career prospects, which types of opportunities they pursue, how they get work done within organizations, and how they balance this work with the rest of their life. Organizations themselves also shape and are shaped by gender dynamics, from the ways they design jobs and performance evaluation systems to the assumptions managers make about individuals’ preferences and motivations. This virtual special issue collects together 14 papers published in Organization Science that challenge common understandings about the sources of gender differences in career outcomes, the effects of balancing work–life obligations, and the ways that gender dynamics play out in teams and organizations. An important insight that emerges from a comparison of these studies is that demand effects are often confused for supply effects. What looks like a supply problem—we think that women choose not to aspire to top positions or to jobs in top paying fields—might actually be a demand problem—organizations or jobs look unappealing to women because of past histories of not hiring or promoting women into leadership roles or of making work–life balance appear to be impossible. These studies suggest that essentialist explanations that attribute gendered outcomes to inherent characteristics or choices of women might be too simplistic or inaccurate. Instead, future research would benefit from examining the complex interactions between supply-side and demand-side drivers of gender inequality.
性别与组织科学:虚拟特刊导论
性别化的过程和结果在组织生活中无处不在。他们塑造了个人如何看待自己的职业前景,他们追求哪种类型的机会,他们如何在组织中完成工作,以及他们如何平衡工作与生活的其他方面。从组织设计工作和绩效评估系统的方式,到管理者对个人偏好和动机的假设,组织本身也在塑造性别动态,并被性别动态所塑造。这期虚拟特刊汇集了发表在《组织科学》杂志上的14篇论文,这些论文挑战了人们对职业结果中性别差异的来源、平衡工作与生活义务的影响以及性别动态在团队和组织中的表现方式的普遍理解。从这些研究的比较中得出的一个重要结论是,需求效应常常与供给效应相混淆。看起来像是供给问题——我们认为女性选择不追求高层职位或高薪领域的工作——实际上可能是需求问题——组织或工作对女性没有吸引力,因为过去不雇用或提拔女性担任领导角色,或者使工作与生活的平衡看起来不可能。这些研究表明,将性别结果归因于女性的内在特征或选择的本质主义解释可能过于简单化或不准确。相反,未来的研究将受益于检查性别不平等的供给侧和需求侧驱动因素之间复杂的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信