No abstract

No abstract

Using data from the 1990 U.S. Census (PUMS 5%), the authors present the first large-scale study of wage differentials between heterosexual and homosexual men. The homosexual sample, consisting of gay men in unmarried partnered relationships, are estimated to have earned 15.6% less than similarly qualified married heterosexual men, and 2.4% less than similarly qualified unmarried partnered heterosexual men. The authors interpret these two figures as upper-and lower-bound estimates of the differential between homosexual and heterosexual men. The dual comparison enables the authors to disentangle the penalty to being unmarried from other determinants of the wage differential; estimated at 14.1%, this variable appears to be the main source of the wage gap.Economists have only recently explored the relation between labor market outcomes and sexual orientation. Our purpose here is twofold: first, to offer the first large-scale study analyzing wage disparities between homosexual and heterosexual men, and second, to determine the key characteristics that account for this wage gap. This unique analysis is possible because in 1990, for the first time, the U.S. Census asked whether an individual's relationship to the head of the household was that of an "unmarried partner." Since other possible responses for occupants who were not relatives of the head included boarder, housemate, roommate, and other non-relative, we make the reasonable assumption that men in same-sex unmarried partner relations were homosexual. The resultant sample of 4,427 homosexual men allows for the first large-scale study of homosexual men.

Considerable theoretical work has been published to date concerning the relationship between demographic composition of organizations and the performance of those firms. Indeed, under the topics of organization demography, substantial thought has been given to how demographic composition influences organization performance. Unfortunately, little empirical research has been conducted. The present research reports the results of two organization-level studies that investigated the relationship between gender diversity of organizations and their performance and hypothesized a nonlinear association. Study 1 results demonstrated support for an inverted U-shaped relationship between gender composition and organization performance, as hypothesized, and these results were constructively replicated in Study 2, thus increasing confidence in the validity of the findings. The results of Study 2 suggest that some industries might not be able to take advantage of this gender composition–firm performance relationship. Implications of these results for theory and research are discussed.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract

This study examines share price reactions to 231 work-family human resource policies adopted by Fortune 500 companies and announced in the Wall Street Journal between 1971 and 1996. Consistent with past research, the results suggest that firm announcements of work-family initiatives positively affected shareholder return. The authors also empirically test three hypotheses concerning how the timing of work-family initiatives influences shareholder reaction. They find that a pioneering company announcing the first-ever implementation of a work-family initiative was likely to realize a larger announcement-day share price increase than did later adopters of the same initiative; the first workfamily announcement released by a firm influenced announcement-day share price more than did successive work-family announcements by the same firm; and share price reactions to work-family human resource decisions were not importantly affected by whether those decisions followed a gender discrimination suit. W ork-family programs have long been considered innovative; however, newer arguments suggest they should also be considered a best practice (Perry-Smith and Blum 2001). Work-family programs may provide the infrastructure necessary to attract the best human resources. Researchers have shown that such programs increase firms' ability to attract and retain employees (Carmichael 1984; Grover and Crooker 1995; Thompson, Beauvais, and Carter 1997). Further, scholars have found that work-family programs allow employees to work more efficiently (Gannon, Norlan, and Robeson 1983; Rothausen, Gonzalez, Clarke, and O'Dell 1998). Consistent with those results, researchers also have found that work-family programs positively affect perceived firm performance (Perry-Smith and Blum 2001).This study adds to our understanding of the relationship between work-family initiatives and firm-level outcomes in several ways. First, we add to a limited literature

No abstract