Advertisement

Lessons to Learn for Organizational Practice

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

Abstract

For-profit or other results-oriented organizations have a strong interest in making use of the best talent at hand. Paradoxically, empirical results presented here prove that (gender) discrimination persists to this day in personnel selection processes. This is the case even in the first stage of a personnel selection process, in concrete in the evaluation of written material for applicant suitability. This fact is of particular importance given the first step of the selection process ought to be guided by relatively objective assessments of suitability based on written material with relatively little impact of social factors such as social similarity or sympathy. If at this stage social factors bias selection decisions, subjective elements likely grow stronger at the job interview stage. For organizations, these results imply decision-makers may (potentially unintentionally) thwart economic, legal and ethical layers of corporate responsibility to treat women equally to men and according to their merit.

Keywords

Equal Opportunity Gender Bias Gender Discrimination Career Opportunity Suitability Assessment 
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. Mayrhofer W, Meyer M, Steyrer J (eds) (2005) Macht? Erfolg? Reich? Glücklich? Einflussfaktoren auf Karrieren. Linde, WienGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilimoria D (1997) A qualitative comparison of the boardroom experiences of U.S. and Norwegian women corporate directors. Int Rev Women Leadersh 3(2):63–76Google Scholar
  3. Cooper JJ (2001) Women middle managers’ perception of the glass ceiling. Women Manage Rev 16(1):30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crain KA, Heischmidt KA (1995) Implementing business ethics: sexual harassment. J Bus Ethics 14(4):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG (1992) Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 111:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fawcett R, Pringle JK (2000) Women CEOs in New Zealand: where are you? Women Manage Rev 15(5/6):253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandez RM, Mors ML (2008) Competing for jobs: labor queues and gender sorting in the hiring process. Soc Sci Res 37:1061–080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gealy J, Larwood L, Elliott MP (1979) Where sex counts: effects of consultant and client gender in management consulting. Group Organ Stud 4:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldberg P (1968) Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction 5:316–322Google Scholar
  11. Goldberg CB, Finkelstein LM, Perry EL, Konrad AM (2004) Job and industry fit: the effects of age and gender matches on career progress outcomes. J Organ Behav 25:807–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heilman ME (1997) Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: the role of sex stereotypes. J Bus Ethics 16:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hosmer LT (1994) Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. StrategManageJ 15(S2):17–34Google Scholar
  14. Krause A, Rinne U, Zimmermann KF (2012) Anonymous job applications in Europe. IZA J Eur Labor Stud 1:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee PM, James EH (2007) SHE’-E-OS: gender effects and investor reactions to the announcement of top executive appointments. StrategManageJ 28:227–241Google Scholar
  16. Lemons MA, Parzinger MJ (2001) Designing women: a qualitative study of the glass ceiling for women in technology. AdvManageJ 66(2):4–11Google Scholar
  17. Murphy SA, McIntyre ML (2007) Board of director performance: a group dynamics perspective. Cor Gov 7(2):209–2224Google Scholar
  18. Neubaum DO, Mitchell MS, Schminke M (2004) Firm newness, entrepreneurial orientation, and ethical climate. J Bus Ethics 52:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perdue CW, Dovidio JF, Gurtman MB, Tyler RB (1990) Us and them: social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. J Pers Soc Psychol 59(3):475–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Rose C (2007) Does female board representation influence firm performance? the Danish evidence. Cor Gov 15(2):404–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rudman LA, Phelan JE (2010) The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Soc Psychol 41:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 Incl Int J 30(3):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stuart P (1992) What does the glass ceiling cost you? Personnel J 71(11):70–80Google Scholar
  25. Szwajkowski E, Larwood L (1991) Rational decision processes and sex discrimination: testing “rational” bias theory. J Organ Behav 12(6):507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Webb J (1997) The politics of equal opportunity. Gend Work Organ 4(3):159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wennerås C, Wold A (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387(22):341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations