Advertisement

Introduction

  • Christina Keinert-Kisin
Chapter
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

Women remain underrepresented numerically in leadership positions of both private and public organizations to this day. At the same time, this inertia “at the top” continues to receive much public attention. Differences in career achievements between men and women are, depending often on ideological conviction of the assessor, attributed to discrimination by superiors and organizations, or to women’s personal choices along the career path. In recent years, quota solutions have been proposed by a number of European political actors. In some countries, they were implemented to bring about change from the outside of organizations. While the efficacy of these measures to affect change for women in leadership cannot yet be assessed, resistance against quota solutions—especially amongst business representatives—is strong. Quota are often presented as an infringement of meritocracy in the competition over top jobs. Resistance to quota solutions appears to—at least in part—stem from scepticism toward the persistence of discrimination. Classical economic thought is, on a fundamental level, sceptical toward the (sustainable) existence of discrimination. If discrimination can be defined as non-consideration of qualified candidates for improper—less than rational—reasons, strictly economic rationale would imply discriminating employers were to suffer competitive disadvantage, at least in the long run. Employers utilizing the best available talent without discrimination would have to outperform (irrational) discriminators on the market. Over time, discriminating employers would thus have to modify their behaviour or risk being defeated on the market by more rationally acting employers. This perspective does not consider widespread social biases and their impact on behaviour. Pre-conceived notions attached to gender—associations of men with rationality and of women overall with emotionality, for example—hold the potential to constrain rationality in personnel decisions by individual decision-makers within organizations on a systematic level. Knowledge from the social sciences, applied to organizational contexts, is able to enrich a discourse and increase understanding of organizational context conditions that may foster (gender) discrimination.

References

  1. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Sandberg S (2013) Lean in: women, work and the will to lead. WH Allen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  4. Burke RJ (1994) Women on corporate boards of directors: views of Canadian chief executive officers. Women Manage Rev 9(5):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manage Rev 32(3):946–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen CM, Overdorf M (2000) Meeting the challenge of disruptive innovation. Harv Bus Rev 78(2):66–76Google Scholar
  7. Delaney JT, Huselid MA (1996) The Impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Acad Manage J 39(4):949–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenwood R, Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. AcadManageRev 21(4):1022–1054Google Scholar
  9. Hall-Taylor B (1997) The construction of women’s management skills and the marginalization of women in senior management. Women Manage Rev 12(7):255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lemons MA, Parzinger MJ (2001) Designing women: a qualitative study of the glass ceiling for women in technology. AdvManageJ 66(2):4–11Google Scholar
  11. Ruigrok W, Peck S, Tacheva S (2007) Nationality and gender diversity on Swiss Corporate Boards. Cor Gov 15(4):546–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Secchi D (2007) Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility. Int JManageRev 9(4):347–373Google Scholar
  13. Van der Walt N, Ingley C (2003a) Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Cor Gov 11(3):218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Van der Walt N, Ingley C (2003b) Board configuration: building better boards. Cor Gov 3(4):5–17Google Scholar
  15. Van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Webb J (1997) The politics of equal opportunity. Gend Work Organ 4(3):159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Keinert-Kisin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations