Advertisement

Empirical Study: Discrimination in Personnel Selection?

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

Abstract

It was suggested the following factors perpetuate discrimination of women in a male-dominated setting: Gender stereotypes have personnel decision-makers implicitly associate desired and required traits of a job with men to a greater degree than with women. This pattern will reflect on ascriptions of competence and suitability to the advantage of men over women. The desire to surround oneself with and to trust more readily individuals similar to oneself—especially with challenging assignments—is expected to reflect negatively on women’s assessment of suitability in a male-dominated and stereotypically masculine-connoted context. Reference to the law in an organizational context without enforcement threat will not counter biases.

Keywords

Academic Competence Personal Skill Senior Scientist Personnel Selection Female Applicant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Basow SA (1986) Gender stereotypes: traditions and alternatives. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Früh W (2007) Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis6. Utb GmbH, KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  3. Mayrhofer W, Meyer M, Steyrer J (eds) (2005) Macht? Erfolg? Reich? Glücklich? Einflussfaktoren auf Karrieren. Linde, WienGoogle Scholar
  4. Webster M Jr, Sell J (eds) (2007) Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Castilla EJ, Benard S (2010) The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm Sci Q 55:543–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charness G (2010) Laboratory experiments: challenges and promise a review of “theory and experiment: what are the questions?” by Vernon Smith. J Econ Behav Organ 73:21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubinsky AJ, Rudelius W (1980) Ethical beliefs: how students compare with industrial salespeople. In: Bagozzi RP (ed) Marketing in the 80’s: changes and challenges. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp 73–76Google Scholar
  8. Eagly AH, Karau SJ, Makhijani MG (1995) Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 117:125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandez RM, Mors ML (2008) Competing for jobs: labor queues and gender sorting in the hiring process. Soc Sci Res 37:1061–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Güth W, Kliemt H (2010) Comments on Vernon Smith’s-theory and experiment: what are the questions. J Econ Behav Organ 73(1):44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatzinger R, Dittrich R, Salzberger T (2009) Präferenzanalyse mit R—Anwendungen aus marketing, Behavioural finance und human resource management. Facultas, WienGoogle Scholar
  12. Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC (1989) Has anything changed? current characterizations of men, women, and managers. J Appl Psychol 74(6):935–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC (1995) Sex stereotypes: do the influence perceptions of managers? J Soc Behav Pers 10(6):237–252Google Scholar
  14. Hellerstein JK, Neumark D, Troske KR (2002) Market forces and sex discrimination. J Hum Resour 37(2):353–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huffcutt AI, Roth PL (1998) Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. J Appl Psychol 83(2):179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF (1988) A test of the form-resistant correlation hypothesis: ratings, rankings, and the measurement of values. Public Opin Q 52(4):526–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landy FJ, Farr JL (1980) Performance rating. Psychol Bull 87(1):72–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larwood L, Szwajkowski E, Rose S (1988) Sex and race discrimination resulting from manager-client relationships: applying the rational bias theory of managerial discrimination. Sex Roles 18(1–2):9–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCabe C, Ingram R, Conway DM (2006) The business of ethics and gender. J Bus Ethics 64(2):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Metz I (2003) Individual, interpersonal, and organisational links to women’s advancement in management in banks. Women Manag Rev 18(5):236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nebenzahl ID, Jaffe ED, Gotesdyner H (1993) Perceptions of Israeli male and female managerial behavior in small group. Int Stud Manag Organ 23(3):97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nieva VF, Gutek BA (1980) Sex effects on evaluation. Acad Manag Rev 5(2):267–276Google Scholar
  23. Petersen LE, Krings F (2009) Are ethical codes of conduct toothless tigers for dealing with employment discrimination? J Bus Ethics 85(4):501–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polzer JT, Mannix EA, Neale MA (1998) Interest alignment in coalitions in multiparty negotiations. Acad Manag J 41(1):42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter LW, Roberts KH (1976) Communication in organizations. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp 1553–1589Google Scholar
  26. Powell GN (1987) The effects of sex and gender on recruitment. Acad Manag J 12(4):731–743Google Scholar
  27. Rosenstein J, Hitt MA (1986) Experimental research on race and sex discrimination: the record and the prospects. J Occup Behav 7:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schein VE (2001) A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. J Soc Issues 57:675–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scholarios D, Lockyer C (1999) Recruiting and selecting professionals: context, qualities and methods. Int J Sel Assess 7:142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shantz A, Wright K, Latham G (2011) Networking with boundary spanners: a quasi-case study on why women are less likely to be offered an engineering role. Equality Divers Inclusion Int J 30(3):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stedham Y, Yamamura JH, Beekun RI (2007) Gender differences in business ethics: justice and relativist perspectives. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 16(2):163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steffens MC, Mehl B (2003) “Erscheinen Karrierefrauen” weniger kompetent als “Karrieremänner”? Geschlechterstereotype und Kompetenzuschreibung. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 34(3):173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swim J, Borgida E, Maruyama G, Myers DG (1989) Joan McKay versus John McKay: do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychol Bull 105(3):409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szwajkowski E, Larwood L (1991) Rational decision processes and sex discrimination: testing “rational” bias theory. J Organ Behav 12(6):507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wennerås C, Wold A (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387(22):341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Auer-Srnka KJ, Koeszegi S (2007) From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 59:29–57Google Scholar
  37. Heilman ME (1997) Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: the role of sex stereotypes. J Bus Ethics 16:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations