Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role that gender differences play in evaluating perceptions of global competence, individual readiness for expatriate assignments and overall job performance.

A total of 11 global leadership competencies and perceptions of expatriate readiness for international assignments, along with job performance are rated by self raters and supervisors.

The results suggest mixed support for sex‐role stereotyping and role‐congruity theory (e.g., women will be rated lower than men for expatriate positions which have typically been held by men) and the similar‐to‐me hypothesis (supervisors will rate same‐sex subordinates higher than opposite‐sex subordinates).

The most interesting finding is that supervisors overall (and male supervisors in particular) rated women lower than men on perceptions of expatriate readiness for international assignments, while there were no differences in ratings of overall performance.

This study uses a sample of male and female self raters and supervisors to examine the relationship between perceptions of expatriate readiness, global competencies, and overall performance. Results suggest that although women may be perceived by their supervisors as having the same level of performance as men, they are not seen as being ready for international assignments at the same rate.

Despite general assumptions that recruitment is important to organizational success, little empiric evidence exists to confirm that different recruitment approaches lead to meaningful differences in attraction outcomes. This study begins to address this research need by examining the attraction outcomes of firms competing head‐to‐head for recruits for similar positions. Results of an analysis of 391 applicant pools representing 18 different job families suggest that applicant pool quality can vary substantially within and across job families. Utility estimates, based on the hiring of a single employee and using Grade Point Average (GPA) as a measure of applicant quality, produced differences within applicant pools for hiring a single individual valued as high as $15,000. The average difference between the highest and lowest quality applicant pools across 18 job families was $6,394.45 (SD = $3,533.20).

In the aviation sector adversity faced by female pilots stemming from stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are well documented. Such adversity in the workplace can cause occupational stress, which may be greater for female pilots, and this influences individual resiliency, impacting job performance and wellbeing. Resilience may be a mitigating factor for coping with occupational stress and individual resilience can be factored into an organisation’s resilience as a whole. When organisations face challenges, there is a need for resilience in order to survive and adapt during disruption and adversity. Resilience with respect to employee and workplace contexts includes both personal resources among the employees as well as workplace resources that are connected to the workplace and organisational environment. As resilience continues to emerge as part of a human capital management strategy, the need to understand the role of the workplace is magnified. For aviation, understanding resilience can potentially inform organisational interventions to address the known occupational stressors and workplace adversity to increase employee performance and well-being. The role of workplace adversity and perceptions of workplace resource availability including supportive environments are discussed in relation to how they influence employee resilience specifically in the aviation industry. The aim of this chapter is to define resilience specific to employee and workplace contexts, introduce personal and workplace resources to influence employee resilience, and discuss the role of occupational stressors specifically for women in male-dominated career fields such as aviation.

Building on organizational justice and privacy literatures, the purpose of this paper is to test a model capturing the impacts of potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on job applicant perceptions and behavioral intentions in a developing economy context with a multicultural workforce.

An experimental design using senior undergraduate students (n=221) seeking or about to seek jobs in the United Arab Emirates was used to examine interviewees’ reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. A questionnaire was used to collect the data. Structural equation modeling and bootstrapping were used for data analysis and hypothesis testing.

This study demonstrates that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence privacy invasion perceptions, which in turn influence job applicants’ fairness perceptions and behavioral intentions. This study also demonstrates that privacy invasion perceptions fully mediate the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory employment interview questions on fairness perceptions. Moreover, the findings show that privacy invasion directly and indirectly, via fairness perceptions, influence litigation intentions. On the other hand, findings of this study indicate that privacy invasion influence organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions only indirectly, via fairness perceptions.

This is the first study to examine the impact of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on applicant reactions in a developing economy context with social, cultural, and legal environment that is different from those prevailing in developed Western societies. This study demonstrates that privacy invasion is an important mechanism to understand job applicant reactions to inappropriate interview questions.