A few good women

Gender differences in evaluations of promotability in industrial research and development

Corinne Post, Nancy DiTomaso, Sarah Lowe, George F. Farris, Rene Cordero

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to evaluate alternative theories about how perceived innovativeness and perceived relational skills interact with gender to explain evaluations by managers of scientists and engineers' promotability into management. Design/methodology/approach - A cross-sectional design is used. The sample (n = 2,278) is drawn from 24 large US corporations. Separate surveys are administered in each corporation to scientists and engineers and to managers evaluating them. Findings - Managers rate men and women equally promotable. Furthermore, women whom managers perceived to be especially innovative receive higher evaluations of promotability than similarly accomplished men. And, among those perceived to have low relational skills, women and men are evaluated similarly. Research limitations/implications - More research is needed to evaluate how ambivalent stereotypes and pressures from organizations to suppress categorical thinking might combine to affect evaluation and selection processes in diverse work settings. Practical implications - Companies should be concerned about the potential tendency for managers to reward a few individuals when they exceed stereotypical expectations. Employees should be aware of and actively manage the impressions that managers have of them with regard to innovativeness and relational skills. Originality/value - This paper calls attention to the role of ambivalence and legitimacy theories that predict that women will receive higher evaluations when they exceed stereotypical expectations of innovativeness and thatwhenwomen do notmeet stereotypical expectations of relational skills, managers will temper their harshness in evaluating them. In developing this analysis, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of evaluation processes by considering the context in which evaluations take place.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)348-371
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Managerial Psychology
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 May 2009

Fingerprint

Research
Illegitimacy
Reward
Managers
Industrial research
Evaluation
Gender differences
Industrial development
Organizations
Pressure
Innovativeness
Engineers

Keywords

  • Gender
  • Performance appraisal
  • Promotion
  • Research and development
  • Social roles
  • United States of America

Cite this

Post, Corinne ; DiTomaso, Nancy ; Lowe, Sarah ; Farris, George F. ; Cordero, Rene. / A few good women : Gender differences in evaluations of promotability in industrial research and development. In: Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2009 ; Vol. 24, No. 4. pp. 348-371.
@article{74f1d01d34b04649876d1f0abc52fd6b,
title = "A few good women: Gender differences in evaluations of promotability in industrial research and development",
abstract = "Purpose - This paper aims to evaluate alternative theories about how perceived innovativeness and perceived relational skills interact with gender to explain evaluations by managers of scientists and engineers' promotability into management. Design/methodology/approach - A cross-sectional design is used. The sample (n = 2,278) is drawn from 24 large US corporations. Separate surveys are administered in each corporation to scientists and engineers and to managers evaluating them. Findings - Managers rate men and women equally promotable. Furthermore, women whom managers perceived to be especially innovative receive higher evaluations of promotability than similarly accomplished men. And, among those perceived to have low relational skills, women and men are evaluated similarly. Research limitations/implications - More research is needed to evaluate how ambivalent stereotypes and pressures from organizations to suppress categorical thinking might combine to affect evaluation and selection processes in diverse work settings. Practical implications - Companies should be concerned about the potential tendency for managers to reward a few individuals when they exceed stereotypical expectations. Employees should be aware of and actively manage the impressions that managers have of them with regard to innovativeness and relational skills. Originality/value - This paper calls attention to the role of ambivalence and legitimacy theories that predict that women will receive higher evaluations when they exceed stereotypical expectations of innovativeness and thatwhenwomen do notmeet stereotypical expectations of relational skills, managers will temper their harshness in evaluating them. In developing this analysis, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of evaluation processes by considering the context in which evaluations take place.",
keywords = "Gender, Performance appraisal, Promotion, Research and development, Social roles, United States of America",
author = "Corinne Post and Nancy DiTomaso and Sarah Lowe and Farris, {George F.} and Rene Cordero",
year = "2009",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1108/02683940910952723",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "348--371",
journal = "Journal of Managerial Psychology",
issn = "0268-3946",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

A few good women : Gender differences in evaluations of promotability in industrial research and development. / Post, Corinne; DiTomaso, Nancy; Lowe, Sarah; Farris, George F.; Cordero, Rene.

In: Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, 01.05.2009, p. 348-371.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A few good women

T2 - Gender differences in evaluations of promotability in industrial research and development

AU - Post, Corinne

AU - DiTomaso, Nancy

AU - Lowe, Sarah

AU - Farris, George F.

AU - Cordero, Rene

PY - 2009/5/1

Y1 - 2009/5/1

N2 - Purpose - This paper aims to evaluate alternative theories about how perceived innovativeness and perceived relational skills interact with gender to explain evaluations by managers of scientists and engineers' promotability into management. Design/methodology/approach - A cross-sectional design is used. The sample (n = 2,278) is drawn from 24 large US corporations. Separate surveys are administered in each corporation to scientists and engineers and to managers evaluating them. Findings - Managers rate men and women equally promotable. Furthermore, women whom managers perceived to be especially innovative receive higher evaluations of promotability than similarly accomplished men. And, among those perceived to have low relational skills, women and men are evaluated similarly. Research limitations/implications - More research is needed to evaluate how ambivalent stereotypes and pressures from organizations to suppress categorical thinking might combine to affect evaluation and selection processes in diverse work settings. Practical implications - Companies should be concerned about the potential tendency for managers to reward a few individuals when they exceed stereotypical expectations. Employees should be aware of and actively manage the impressions that managers have of them with regard to innovativeness and relational skills. Originality/value - This paper calls attention to the role of ambivalence and legitimacy theories that predict that women will receive higher evaluations when they exceed stereotypical expectations of innovativeness and thatwhenwomen do notmeet stereotypical expectations of relational skills, managers will temper their harshness in evaluating them. In developing this analysis, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of evaluation processes by considering the context in which evaluations take place.

AB - Purpose - This paper aims to evaluate alternative theories about how perceived innovativeness and perceived relational skills interact with gender to explain evaluations by managers of scientists and engineers' promotability into management. Design/methodology/approach - A cross-sectional design is used. The sample (n = 2,278) is drawn from 24 large US corporations. Separate surveys are administered in each corporation to scientists and engineers and to managers evaluating them. Findings - Managers rate men and women equally promotable. Furthermore, women whom managers perceived to be especially innovative receive higher evaluations of promotability than similarly accomplished men. And, among those perceived to have low relational skills, women and men are evaluated similarly. Research limitations/implications - More research is needed to evaluate how ambivalent stereotypes and pressures from organizations to suppress categorical thinking might combine to affect evaluation and selection processes in diverse work settings. Practical implications - Companies should be concerned about the potential tendency for managers to reward a few individuals when they exceed stereotypical expectations. Employees should be aware of and actively manage the impressions that managers have of them with regard to innovativeness and relational skills. Originality/value - This paper calls attention to the role of ambivalence and legitimacy theories that predict that women will receive higher evaluations when they exceed stereotypical expectations of innovativeness and thatwhenwomen do notmeet stereotypical expectations of relational skills, managers will temper their harshness in evaluating them. In developing this analysis, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of evaluation processes by considering the context in which evaluations take place.

KW - Gender

KW - Performance appraisal

KW - Promotion

KW - Research and development

KW - Social roles

KW - United States of America

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67651011629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/02683940910952723

DO - 10.1108/02683940910952723

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 348

EP - 371

JO - Journal of Managerial Psychology

JF - Journal of Managerial Psychology

SN - 0268-3946

IS - 4

ER -