In this paper, we have endeavored to integrate the literature on psychological contracts with the literature on contingent work arrangements. We have further developed the theoretical foundation of the psychological contract and its dimensions. After reviewing previous work on contingent employment, we illustrate how the dimensions of psychological contracts (stability, scope, tangibility, focus, time frame, particularism, multiple agency and volition) highlight the dierences and similarities among alternative employment arrangements in a meaningful and parsimonious manner. In doing so, we have sought to oer an alternative to the categorization of employment arrangements that has, thus far, made comparisons across studies dicult. In addition, we argue that the dimensions of psychological contracts, more so than the content of these contracts, are more generalizable across various types of work arrangements, as well as across dierent types of jobs and across national boundaries.

This paper examines the relationship between gender and reports of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Drawing on gender role theory, I examine the effects of employee gender (male/female), gender orientation (masculine/feminine) and gender-dominated occupational choice (nurse/engineer) on OCBs. I hypothesize relationships between gender and the performance of gender-congruent OCBs, i.e., female-typed altruism and male-typed civic virtue. The results demonstrate significant differences in line with traditional gender roles. Implications are discussed.

No abstract

SummaryThis paper examines how perceptions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) are affected by socially constructed gender roles. We argue that gender roles are important for the perception, categorization, and consequences of OCBs. We suggest that the dimensions of OCBs (altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue) are related to gender stereotypes. Combining social identity theory with gender role theory suggests that the`gender' of these behaviors, the job, the job incumbent, and the gender identity of the observer interact, potentially broaden the breadth of requisite job behaviors de®ned as either in-or extra-role. Implications are discussed.

This study used a scenario design to examine whether there are different reactions among whites based on how a diversity program is justified by an organization. A reactive justification (affirmative action) was proposed to result in greater backlash than a competitive advantage justification (diversity management). In addition, this study examined the effects of personal and group outcomes on backlash and explored two individual difference variables, gender and orientation toward other ethnic groups, as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Backlash was operationalized in four ways: an affect‐based measure (negative emotions), two cognitive‐based measures (attitude toward the diversity program, perceptions of unfairness of promotion procedures), and a behavioral‐intentions‐based measure (organizational commitment). Results indicated that the diversity management justification was associated with more favorable support of the diversity initiative, and that unfavorable personal and group outcomes adversely affected backlash reactions. There was no empirical support for the influence of the moderator variables on the proposed relationships, however, a main effect for gender was found. Implications of the study's findings and future research directions are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

To attract a gender diverse workforce, many employers use diversity statements to publicly signal that they value gender diversity. However, this often represents a misalignment between words and actions (i.e., a diversity mixed message) because most organizations are male dominated, especially in board positions. We conducted 3 studies to investigate the potentially indirect effect of such diversity mixed messages through perceived behavioral integrity on employer attractiveness. In Study 1, following a 2 ϫ 2 design, participants (N ϭ 225) were either shown a pro gender diversity statement or a neutral statement, in combination with a gender diverse board (4 men and 4 women) or a uniform all-male board (8 men). Participants' perceived behavioral integrity of the organization was assessed. In Study 2, participants (N ϭ 251) either read positive or negative reviews of the organization's behavioral integrity. Employer attractiveness was then assessed. Study 3 (N ϭ 427) investigated the impact of board gender composition on perceived behavioral integrity and employer attractiveness using a bootstrapping procedure. Both the causal-chain design of Study 1 and 2, as well as the significance test of the proposed indirect relationship in Study 3, revealed that a diversity mixed message negatively affected an organization's perceived behavioral integrity, and low behavioral integrity in turn negatively impacted employer attractiveness. In Study 3, there was also evidence for a tipping point (more than 1 woman on the board was needed) with regard to participants' perceptions of the organization's behavioral integrity.