Emmeline de Pillis, Richard Kernochan, Ofer Meilich, Elise Prosser and Victoria Whiting
The purpose of this paper is to compare the extent to which the stereotype of “manager” aligns with the stereotype of “male” in the Continental United States (CUS) and Hawai’i.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to compare the extent to which the stereotype of “manager” aligns with the stereotype of “male” in the Continental United States (CUS) and Hawai’i.
Design/methodology/approach
In total, 176 male and 187 female business undergraduates in Hawai’i and the CUS were asked to describe either a manager, a male manager, or a female manager using the 92‐item Schein Descriptive Index.
Findings
Men and women in Hawai’i, and women in the CUS, did not report a strong “think manager = think male” bias, but male participants in the CUS did: These men described hypothetical female managers as comparatively obedient, submissive, timid, reserved, fearful, uncertain, passive, and interested in their own appearance. They rated male managers as relatively more firm, independent, persistent, self‐reliant, and having a high need for achievement.
Research limitations/implications
The relative lack of a “think manager = think male” bias in Hawai’i is remarkable, since this bias is observed worldwide. Further investigation would confirm or clarify these findings.
Practical implications
Stereotypical views persist among some of our future business leaders, but are not universal. Educators and businesspeople should be aware of the strong “think manager = think male” bias still extant among male business students in the CUS.
Originality/value
Although the persistence of the “think manager = think male” stereotype is troubling, this stereotype is not universal. While past cross‐cultural investigations treat the US’ culture as homogeneous, we find significant regional differences with regard to managerial gender stereotypes.
Details
Keywords
Eun Kyung Lee, Woonki Hong and Deborah E. Rupp
Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have been shown to influence several employee outcomes positively. To extend the research, the authors examine the effect of i-deals on employees’…
Abstract
Purpose
Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have been shown to influence several employee outcomes positively. To extend the research, the authors examine the effect of i-deals on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, in particular, how the relationship between employees’ own i-deals and organizational justice is affected by employees' job performance as well as their perceptions of coworkers’ i-deals.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors tested the theoretical model using survey data from 182 hotel employees.
Findings
Results show that i-deals are positively related to employees’ perceptions of organizational justice and that such effects are stronger among high performing employees. The effect of i-deals on organizational justice was also more pronounced among employees who viewed coworkers as having successfully negotiated i-deals.
Practical implications
The authors' findings suggest that organizations can benefit from providing i-deals through employees’ enhanced perceptions of organizational justice. The paper thus recommends that organizations understand the impact of providing more flexible human resources (HR) practices and customized work arrangements that are aligned with individual goals and needs. This may be particularly relevant to high performers. Furthermore, the findings suggest that organizations may want to make i-deals available to employees more widely than to just a few selected individuals.
Originality/value
This study is one of a few attempts that empirically investigate the relationship between i-deals and organizational justice. The findings of this study shed light on the possibility that employees develop positive justice perceptions toward employeesʼ organization based on the appreciation of the customized work arrangements granted to both themselves and others.