Evaluators' fit assessments are not only influenced by applicants' qualities, but also by stereotypes, especially in recruitment for high-status jobs in male-dominated fields.The unidimensional agentic stereotype of these work contexts signals agentic job and organizational requirements (stereotypically male qualities such as achievement orientation), although the actual requirements usually also include communality (stereotypically female qualities such as interpersonal skills). In five experiments, we investigate the relevance of perceived applicant agency for perceived applicant fit, the influence of recruitment material, contextual differences, and the role of applicant gender. Our findings indicate that perceived applicant agency drives perceived person-job and person-organization fit in strictly male stereotyped work contexts, regardless of gender, and agentic recruitment material enhances this effect. Contrasting different contexts (high-with low-status jobs and a maledominated with a gender-balanced and female-dominated field) revealed that the relevance of perceived agency increases with perceived job status, and the relevance of perceived communality decreases with the expected shareThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Recruitment contexts such as STEM professorships promote clearly defined selection criteria and objective assessment. We illuminate in these contexts, the subjective interpretation of seemingly objective criteria and gendered arguments in discussions of applicants. Additionally, we explore gender bias despite comparable applicant profiles investigating how specific success factors lead to selection recommendations for male and female applicants. Implementing a mixed methods approach, we aim to highlight the influence of heuristics, stereotyping, and signaling in applicant assessments. We interviewed 45 STEM professors. They answered qualitative open-ended interview questions, and evaluated hypothetical applicant profiles, qualitatively and quantitatively. The applicant profiles enabled a conjoint experiment with different applicant attributes varied across the profiles (i.e., publications, willingness to cooperate, network recommendation, and applicant gender), the interviewees indicating scores of selection recommendation while thinking aloud. Our findings reveal gendered arguments, i.e., questioning women potentially fueled by a perception of women’s exceptional status and perceived self-questioning of women. Furthermore, they point to gender-independent and gender-dependent success patterns, thereby to potential success factors particularly for female applicants. We contextualize and interpret our quantitative findings in light of professors’ qualitative statements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.