Search results

This paper aims to test penis panic theory, which predicts that trans women will face more discrimination than trans men in some but not all situations.

Respondents were 262 American college students who were all enrolled in the same undergraduate course. They were presented with a case about coworker resistance to transgender employees' use of the workplace restrooms of their choice. Four versions of a case were randomly distributed as follows: trans woman, restroom with one toilet; trans woman, restroom with three toilets; trans man, restroom with one toilet and trans man, restroom with three toilets.

The authors observed greater discrimination against trans women compared to trans men when there was one toilet but not when there were three toilets. This supports penis panic theory.

The chief limitation was the use of American college students as respondents. The results may not generalize to practicing managers especially in other countries. Future researchers should develop a scale to measure situational discrimination against trans women. This study should be replicated in other contexts to deepen the understanding of discrimination against trans men and trans women with disabilities, as well as discrimination against nonbinary individuals who identify as neither trans men nor trans women.

Employers need to search for situations in which trans women face greater discrimination than trans men, because they can be resolved in ways that protect the rights of transgender employees no matter how transphobic their coworkers may be. Also, employers need a nuanced approach to combat discrimination that recognizes the unique perspectives of trans men, trans women and other members of the transgender community.

This is the first quantitative study of penis panic theory, and it illuminates the understanding of discrimination against transgender individuals.

Based on the cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and social comparison theory, this study explores the mediating mechanism and boundary conditions of supervisor bottom-line mentality on employee presenteeism.

Using hierarchical regression and bootstrapping, we test the hypothesized relationships with three-stage data from 265 full-time employees in China.

Supervisor bottom-line mentality has a significant positive influence on employee presenteeism. Workplace fear of missing out plays a mediating role between supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee presenteeism. Employees’ status-striving motivation positively moderates the influence of supervisor bottom-line mentality on employees’ workplace fear of missing out and enhances the mediating effect of workplace fear of missing out.

Presenteeism can be detrimental to employees’ health, and ultimately leads to a decrease in organizational productivity. Research conclusions warn companies to be vigilant about supervisors’ bottom-line mentalities and to strengthen employee health management.

This study explains when and how supervisor bottom-line mentality affects employee health, contributing to the literature on the antecedents of presenteeism and enriching the research on supervisor bottom-line mentalities and employee and organizational outcomes. This study clarifies the emotional mechanisms and boundary conditions of supervisor bottom-line mentality affecting presenteeism.

This study aims to test bigenderism, a universalistic theory that purports to explain why trans men employees enjoy greater organizational acceptance and superior economic outcomes compared to trans women employees.

Respondents were presented with one of two case studies in which they had to choose whether or not to respect the right of a trans employee to use the restroom of their choice at work. The only difference between the two case studies was the gender of the trans employee. In one case, the employee was a trans man and in the other case, the employee was a trans woman.

The gender of the trans employee had no impact on the choices of the respondents.

The chief research implication is that heightened discrimination against trans men may better be explained by situational theories of transphobia rather than the universalistic theory that was tested in this paper. The primary research limitation was the use of American undergraduate business students as respondents.

Organizations need to be especially vigilant in protecting the restroom rights of their transgender employees, which may entail eliminating gender-segregated restrooms.

This paper is original in that it uses an experimental design to test the theory of bigenderism. It adds value by encouraging experimental research that examines situational theories of transphobia.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance the understanding of employers’ responses to the restroom requests of transgender employees, and to assess the ability as educators to reduce transphobia in the students.

Subjects were 194 undergraduate business students at a medium-sized public university in the northeastern USA who were enrolled in an undergraduate course in organizational behavior. During class, they read a brief case which asked the students to play the role of a CEO in Little Rock, Arkansas, receiving a complaint from a female employee about using the same restroom as a coworker who is transitioning from male to female.

The most inclusive response was also the rarest, with only 27 percent of students recommending unisex bathrooms. Hostile actions, forcing the transitioning employee to use the men's restroom, were recommended by 38 percent of those who correctly realized that an employee would be unprotected by sexual orientation discrimination law in this case and by 30 percent of those who thought that she could sue for that type of discrimination in that jurisdiction.

It would be interesting to replicate this with non-student samples such as human resource managers and executives. The use of a US sample and of a text-based case can also be viewed as weaknesses. Because gender identity is embodied, self-constructed, and socially constructed, no single research study can capture the totality of work life for transgender employees.

Transphobia is so powerful that a substantial percentage of the students recommended courses of action that they believed to be illegal even though the study was designed to discourage a hostile response. Employers that are concerned about transgender rights will need to do a lot more than just grafting the word “transgender” onto their extant set of policies.

Since today's business students are tomorrow's business leaders, the authors could eventually make the business world more tolerant if the authors could identify a message that resonates with the students and causes them to re-evaluate their homophobia and transphobia.

Empirical studies of transgender issues have been dominated by the qualitative approach, so there is a need for more quantitative research on this topic. The hostile responses usually indicated greater acceptance of transgender employees who have completed gender reassignment surgery. This seems difficult to reconcile with a conception of transphobia as a generalized distaste towards all those who transgress gender norms.