p the women from gaining power.
This phenomenon suggests that multiple processes explain women’s advancement. Inthis paper, we examine to what extent scientists’ and engineers’ gender interacts withmanagers’ perceptions of their innovativeness and relational skills to affect managers’evaluations of their promotability.
We draw first on social role and role congruity theories to predict gender differences inevaluations and gender differences in the relationship among perceived technical,relational skills and evaluations. We contrast this with the literature on ambivalentstereotypes and on expectancy violation theory. Social role theory posits that individualsare expected to conform to expectations associated with their social roles (Biddle, 1979).Role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002) further argues that individuals arepunished when they violate social expectations about them. However, the literature onstereotype ambivalence suggests that attitudes toward different social groups usuallycombine a negative and a positive dimension, enabling raters to feel positively toward agroup about which they also hold negative biases (Brewer, 2000; Fiske et al., 2002;Glick and Fiske, 1996). Expectancy violation theory (Jussimet al., 1987) predicts thatwhenindividuals exhibit positive traits and behaviors that are not stereotypically expected fromthem, they will receive positive evaluations (Bettencourt et al., 2001).
In this paper, we argue that the context of the evaluationsmay affect the likelihood thateither predictions from role congruity theory or from expectancy violation theory aresupported (Fiske et al., 2002; Perry et al., 1994). It is noteworthy, for example, that mostanalyses of role congruity theory exhibiting gender biases in evaluations have usedexperimental designs (predominantly with student samples.) Conversely, fieldstudies(e.g. organizational studies and survey analyses) have uncovered less gender bias inratings (Bowen et al., 2000; Bretz et al., 1992;Tziner et al., 1997). This suggests a morecomplex relationship between gender and promotability evaluations (Perry et al., 1994;
Posthuma et al., 2002; Tziner et al., 1997) than that predicted by role congruity theory.One
suggested explanation for the discrepant findings is that respondents in experimentalstudies are made verbally or symbolically aware of the rater characteristics underinvestigation. In field settings,when raters havemore information about the persons theyare evaluating, it is less clear what categories emerge as relevant in the raters’ mentalcategorization processes (Kulik et al., 2007; Macrae and Bodenhausen, 2000).
In organizations, managers who rate employees tend to use much more informationabout their subordinates than is available to raters in an experimental study(Raymark et al., 1999). Managers also may give different ratings, becauseorganizational policies affect the activation of stereotypes in managers’ evaluations. Forexample, training programsmay heighten the sensitivity ofmanagers to diversity policies
https://www.51lunwen.org/Belgian/and directives (Ellis and Sonnenfeld, 1994). Ambivalence in performance evaluations canbe amplified by contextual factors, such as whether they occur in the public or privatesphere of decision-making (Norton et al., 2006). Thus, managers may feel especiallyambivalent about women’s performance in organizational contexts where affirmativeaction policies are operative and where there are pressures t
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。