What Factors Increase Gender Diversity in Management?

13887676297_d1da829ccb_zManagement structure can have a large impact on the representation of women in management, but which structure is most effective in promoting gender diversity? The answer may surprise you. In the article “The View at the Top or Signing at the Bottom? Workplace Diversity Responsibility and Women’s Representation in Management,” from ILR Review, authors Mary E. Graham, Maura A. Belliveau, and Julie L. Hotchkiss investigated what correlations could be found between different management structures and gender diversity in management. Surprisingly, they found that having an HR executive on the top management team did not necessarily equate to more women in management. The abstract for the article describes their findings:

Women lag men in their representation in management jobs, which negatively affects women’s careers and company performance. Using data from 81 publicly traded firms with more than 2,000 establishments, the authors examine the impact of two management structures that may influence gender diversity in management Current Issue Coverpositions. The authors find no association between the presence of an HR executive on the top management team—a structure envisioned in practice as enhancing diversity but which could, instead, operate merely symbolically—and the proportion of women in management. By contrast, the authors show a strong, positive association between a previously unexamined measure of commitment to diversity—the hierarchical rank of the individual certifying the company’s required, confidential federal EEO-1 report—and women’s representation in management. These findings counter the common perception that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations are too weak to affect gender diversity. The authors discuss the implications for diversity scholarship, as well as for management practice and public policy.

You can read the article “The View at the Top or Signing at the Bottom? Workplace Diversity Responsibility and Women’s Representation in Management” published in ILR Review free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to keep current on all of the latest research published by ILR ReviewClick here to sing up for e-alerts!

*Image attributed to Will Evans (CC)


How Are Editorial Boards Comprised for Marketing Journals?

Becoming a member of an editorial board  can be a paramount step in the life of an academic. Scholars are able to explorelearning-with-pencil-948188-m new ideas in their field while increasing their notoriety. But just how are editorial boards of marketing journals constituted? That’s what authors Yue Pan and Jason Q. Zhang set out to research in their article titled “The Composition of the Editorial Boards of General Marketing Journals” from Journal of Marketing Education.

The abstract:

Unlike the diversity issues in corporate governance, the diversity in top academic positions (e.g., editorial boards of academic journals in business) is rather under researched. The editorial boards of academic marketing JME(D)_72ppiRGB_powerpointjournals are important gatekeepers and trendsetters in the creation and dissemination of marketing knowledge. Membership on journal editorial boards usually signals scholarly stature and professional advancement. This study examines the composition of editorial boards of general marketing journals, and compares it with what it was like 15 years ago. The study also investigates the impact of the composition of editorial boards on journal quality. We find that women’s participation in editorial boards generally corresponds to their presence in the profession. We also find an overall small representation of board members affiliated with nonacademic institutions. While the presence of women, practitioners, or international members does not have any relationship with journal quality, the presence of scholars affiliated with doctoral programs seems to correlate with journal quality. The number of female and international members on the boards increased, whereas practitioners’ representation dropped from 1997 to 2012.