Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of balanced gender proportions in the workplace: Contrasting theories of in-group bias against status construction theory using Roman-Catholic Monasticism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Unternehmen und Klöster

  • 890 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Gender inequality in the workplace is a central issue in both management practice and management research (Bohnet, 2016; Bowles & McGinn, 2008; Dobbin, 2009: 61; Phillips, 2005; Ridgeway, 2014). Two central theoretical perspectives proffer different explanations for gender inequality: theories of in-group bias and status construction theory. According to the former (Srivastava & Sherman, 2015; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’ Reilly, 1998), gender inequality is a result of the demographic composition of the relevant social context, namely, the under-representation of women in the workplace, which disappears when gender proportions are balanced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & society, 4(2): 139-158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (1992a). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary sociology, 21(5): 565-569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (1992b). Gendering organizational theory. Classics of Organizational Theory: 463-472. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & society, 20(4): 441-464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, J., & Hackman, J. R. (1995). The more, the better? A four-nation study of the inclusion of women in symphony orchestras. Social Forces, 74(2): 423-460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C. L. (1996). The politics of affirmative action:’Women’, equality and category politics: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balafoutas, L., & Sutter, M. (2012). Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory. Science, 335(6068): 579-582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, A. J., Kang, S. M., & Stewart, D. (2012). The organizational selection of status characteristics: Status evaluations in an open source community. Organization Science, 23(2): 341-354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birrell, S. (1984). Separatism as an issue in women’s sport. Arena Review, 8(2): 21-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I. (2016). What Works: Gender Equality by Design: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botelho, T. L., & Abraham, M. (2017). Pursuing quality: how search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process, Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2008). 2 Untapped Potential in the Study of Negotiation and Gender Inequality in Organizations. Academy of Management annals, 2(1): 99-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundage, J. A., & Makowski, E. M. (1994). Enclosure of nuns: The decretal Periculoso and its commentators. Journal of Medieval History, 20(2): 143-155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, L. (2016). We just can’t handle diversity. Harvard Business Review, 94(7/8): 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bynum, C. W. (1987). Religious women in the later Middle Ages. Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation: 121-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-R., Peterson, R. S., Phillips, D. J., Podolny, J. M., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table – attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science, 23(2): 299-307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. (2016). How Cinderella became a queen theorizing radical status change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 507-550.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 473-501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F. (2009). Inventing equal opportunity: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 2016(7/8): 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drobnič, S., & Ruppanner, L. (2015). Gender inequalities in the home, Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource: 1-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and Leadership-Style – A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 233-256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders – a metaanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5): 685-710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3): 573-598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American psychologist, 54(6): 408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L., & Petterson, S. (1999). Symbols and substance in organizational response to civil rights law, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekelund, R. B., & Hébert, R. F. (2013). A history of economic theory and method: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, F., & Teigen, M. (2012). Firms, Boards and Gender Quotas: Comparative Perspectives. England: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6): 878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup (2011). Americans Still Prefer Male Bosses; Many Have No Preference. Frank Newport, September(8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, P. S. (1993). Men helping women: A monastic case study. Sociology of Religion, 54(1): 43-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey, S. (2006). Numbers and beyond: The relevance of critical mass in gender research. Politics & Gender, 2(04): 492-502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager, B. J. (1992). Get thee to a nunnery: Female religious claustration in medieval Europe. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(5-6): 385-407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendley, A., & Charles, M. (2015). Gender segregation in higher education, Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource: 1-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, M. L., Haveman, H. A., & Beresford, L. S. (2012). If you’re so smart, why aren’t you the boss? Explaining the persistent vertical gender gap in management. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social science, 639(1): 114-130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M. M., Krook, M. L., & Paxton, P. (2015). Transnational Women’s Activism and the Global Diffusion of Gender Quotas. International Studies Quarterly, 59(2): 357-372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of management Review, 18(1): 56-87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2001). Studying status: An integrated framework. American Sociological Review, 66(1): 96-124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. K., Hekman, D. R., & Chan, E. T. (2016). If There’s Only One Woman in Your Candidate Pool, There’s Statistically No Chance She’ll Be Hired. Harvard Business Review, 2016(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American sociological review, 71(4): 589-617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, L. (1994). Power and influence in state legislative policymaking: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. American Political Science Review, 88(03): 560-576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A. (1987). From Asceticism to Administration of Wealth. Medieval Monasteries and the Pitfalls of Rationalization. Organization Studies, 8(2): 103-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 777-785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. E. (1991). The effectiveness of affirmative action: The case of women in policing. Justice Quarterly, 8(4): 489-504.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, E. C. (1974). Equality of Souls, Inequality of Sexes: Women in Medieval Theology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 441-452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Bridges, W. (1999). Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, Y. F. (1999). The making of a token: A case study of stereotype threat, stigma, racism, and tokenism in academe. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 20(1): 111-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1754-1774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of management review, 13(1): 65-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opitz, C. (1996). Erziehung und Bildung in Frauenklöstern des hohen und späten Mittelalters (12.-15. Jahrhundert). In C. Opitz, & E. Kleinau (Eds.), Geschichte der Mädchen- und Frauenbildung. Band 1 Vom Mittelalter bis zur Aufklärung: 63-90. Frankfurt am Main, New York, NY: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisse, M. (1983). Les nonnes au moyen age. Le Puy: Christine Bonneton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernoud, R. (1991). Leben der Frauen im Hochmittelalter. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verlag-Ges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In B. Staw, & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5: 299-357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. J. (2005). Organizational genealogies and the persistence of gender inequality: The case of Silicon Valley law firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 440-472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human relations, 42(1): 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value – gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70(2): 367-386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62(2): 218-235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2007). Gender as a group process: Implications for the persistence of inequality. In S. J. Correll (Ed.), Social Psychology of Gender, Vol. 24: 311-333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79(1): 1-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Boyle, E. H., Kuipers, K. J., & Robinson, D. T. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 63(3): 331-350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2006). Consensus and the creation of status beliefs. Social Forces, 85(1): 431-453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Erickson, K. G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3): 579-615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Johnson, C., & Diekema, D. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups. Social Forces, 72(4): 1051-1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Li, Y. E., Erickson, K. G., Backor, K., & Tinkler, J. E. (2009). How Easily Does a Social Difference Become a Status Distinction? Gender Matters. American Sociological Review, 74(1): 44-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rösener, W. (2008). Household and prayer: Medieval convents as economic entities. In J. F. Hamburger, & S. Marti (Eds.), Crown and Veil. Female Monasticism from the 5th to the 15th Centuries: 245-258. New York, NY: Colombia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, K. (2017). Introduction to the corporate governance of religion, Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, M. (2004). The Social Psychology of Tokenism: Status and Homophily Processes on Wall Street. Sociological Perspectives, 47(2): 189-214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1): 165-179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2): 95-100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3): 340-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E., Müller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager-think male: a global phenomenon? Journal of organizational behavior, 17(1): 33-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlotheuber, E. (2003). Wir, die wir von Kindheit an wie in einem Rosengarten erzogen worden sind…Klostereintritt und Ausbildung in den spätmittelalterlichen Frauenklöstern. Damals. Das Magazin für Geschichte und Kultur, 7: 30-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtchen, D., & Mayer, A. (1997). Established Clergy, Friars and the Pope: Some Institutional Economics of the Medieval Church. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153: 122-149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seierstad, C., & Opsahl, T. (2011). For the few not the many? The effects of affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1): 44-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1): 68-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., & Corder, J. (1982). Social-structure and inter-group interaction - men and women of the federal bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 47(5): 587-599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southern, R. W. (1970). Western society and the Church in the Middle Ages. Aylesbury, Bucks: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, S. B., & Sherman, E. L. (2015). Agents of Change or Cogs in the Machine? Reexamining the Influence of Female Managers on the Gender Wage Gap 1. American Journal of Sociology, 120(6): 1778-1808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5): 1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: studies in social psychology. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost, & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political Psychology: Key Readings: 276-293. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. (2015). Legislating a Woman’s Seat on the Board: Institutional Factors Driving Gender Quotas for Boards of Directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2): 233-251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triana, M. d. C., & Garcia, M. F. (2009). Valuing diversity: a group‐value approach to understanding the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7): 941-962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2013). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3): 460-492.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1008-1022.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515-541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2): 282-296.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2): 125-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. L., Kilanski, K., & Muller, C. (2014). Corporate diversity programs and gender inequality in the oil and gas industry. Work and Occupations, 41(4): 440-476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. L., & Neely, M. T. (2015). Gender and work, Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’ Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77-140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism – looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5(2): 178-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D. (1994). Looking Beyond numbers – the effects of gender status, job prestige, and occupational gender-typing on tokenism processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(2): 150-159.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz

    Katja Rost & David Seidl

Authors
  1. Katja Rost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Seidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katja Rost .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Controlling & Consulting, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Linz, Oberösterreich, Austria

    Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmüller

  2. Institut für Controlling & Consulting, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Linz, Austria

    Tanja Wolf

  3. Benediktinerstift Lambach, Lambach, Austria

    Maximilian Neulinger OSB

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rost, K., Seidl, D. (2019). The impact of balanced gender proportions in the workplace: Contrasting theories of in-group bias against status construction theory using Roman-Catholic Monasticism. In: Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., Wolf, T., Neulinger OSB, M. (eds) Unternehmen und Klöster. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26694-3_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26694-3_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26693-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26694-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation