Gender and Workplace Dispute Resolution: A Conceptual and Theoretical Model

Gwartney-Gibbs, Patricia A.; Lach, Denise

doi:10.2307/3054147

Cited by 34 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research shows that minorities and the poor face substantial obstacles in mobilizing legal rights ranging from psychological and structural barriers to filing claims (Bumiller 1988;Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat 1981;Burstein and Monaghan 1986;Gwartney-Gibbs and Lach 1994;Nielsen and Nelson 2005;Hirsh and Kornrich 2008) to weaker legal counsel (Galanter 1974;Heinz, Nelson, Sandefur and Laumann 2005) to structural aspects of litigation that disadvantage parties that lack social clout (Galanter 1974;Albiston 1999;Wakefield and Uggen 2004). Galanter (1974) shows how repeat players (almost always advantaged parties) play for stronger rules.…”

Section: Plaintiff Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

Edelman

Krieger

Eliason

et al. 2011

American Journal of Sociology

187

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there is now a considerable literature on how law and legal principles serve as institutionalized models for organizations, there has been far less attention to how organizational practices may serve as institutionalized models for courts. This article offers a theoretical and empirical analysis of legal endogeneity -a subtle yet powerful process through which institutionalized organizational structures and practices influence judicial conceptions of legality and compliance with antidiscrimination law. We argue that, irrespective of their effectiveness, organizational structures, such as grievance procedures, anti-harassment policies, evaluation procedures, and formal hiring procedures, become symbolic indicators of compliance with anti-discrimination laws, first within organizations, but eventually in the judicial realm as well. As organizational structures become increasingly institutionalized, lawyers and judges become more likely to associate them with rationality and fairness and to infer nondiscrimination from the mere presence of those structures. Legal endogeneity has observable manifestations: judges increasingly refer to organizational structures in their opinions, find them relevant to determinations of legal liability, and ultimately defer to those structures by inferring nondiscrimination from their presence. We test legal endogeneity theory by analyzing a random sample of 1024 federal employment discrimination decisions from 1965-1999. We find that legal endogeneity has increased over time; that judicial deference is most likely when plaintiffs lack social and economic clout; and that judicial deference is most likely when the legal theories require judges to rule on organizational attributes that are not directly observable. We suggest that legal endogeneity weakens the impact of law as judges come to view organizational structures as indicators of legal compliance even when those structures are ineffective in combating discrimination.2

show abstract

Section: Plaintiff Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

Edelman

Krieger

Eliason

et al. 2011

American Journal of Sociology

187

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors finding in another way round disagreed with the present finding as they argue that female managers tend to use interpersonal, compromising, co-operative, collaborative, avoiding, pro-social, and communicative approaches in the course of managing industrial conflict. While male managers often utilized more aggressive, competitive, confronting, assertive, pro-task and coercive approaches more often than the female managers, even when collective bargaining strategy is being adopted (Gibbs and Lach, 1994;Lay, 1994;Akintayo, 2004;Ajaja, 2004;Adeyemo, 2005). Hypothesis three predicted that there is no difference between male and female managers' conflict resolution effectiveness.…”

Section: Discussion Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering the conflict management style, researchers have indicated that female supervisors tend to use interpersonal, compromising, collaborative, accommodating, integrating, co-operative, avoiding, pro-social and communicative methods. In contrast, there is evidence that male managers tend to use more aggressive competitive, confronting, assertive, pro-task and coercive strategies more often and faster than female managers (Gibbs & Lach, 1994;Lay, 1994;Sorenson &Hawkins, 1995;Conrad, 1991;Akintayo, 2004;Ajaja, 2004;Adeyemo, 2005). Babajide (2000) noted that authoritarian style is prevalent among female managers and a democratic style is manifested by male managers.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Influences on Managerial Style and Conflict Resolution Effectiveness in Work Organisations in South-Western, Nigeria

Shadare

Chidi

Owoyemi

2011

IJBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the influences of gender on managerial style and conflict resolution effectiveness in work organisations in South-Western Nigeria. The findings of the study revealed that a significant relationship exists between managerial style and conflict resolution effectiveness (r = 0.356; P < 0.05). I t was also found that there was no significant difference between male and female managers’ conflict management style (t (209) = 17.56; P > 0.05).It was found that a significant difference exists between female and male managers’ conflict resolution effectiveness (t (209) = 5.66; P < 0.05). Based on the findings of the study, the authors recommended that democratic management style should be encouraged as conflict resolution strategy in order to guarantee effective management of industrial conflict and sustainable peace and harmony. Thus, the participatory management style should be employed during collective bargaining process in order to foster effective management of conflict in work organisations

show abstract

“…workplace dispute resolution and employment outcomes (e.g., Gwartney‐Gibbs and Lach 1994; Ridgeway 1997);…”

Section: Understanding Gender’s Impact On Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation¹

Boyer¹,

Urlacher

Hudson

et al. 2009

International Studies Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Gender and Workplace Dispute Resolution: A Conceptual and Theoretical Model

Cited by 34 publications

References 67 publications

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

Gender Influences on Managerial Style and Conflict Resolution Effectiveness in Work Organisations in South-Western, Nigeria

Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Gender and Workplace Dispute Resolution: A Conceptual and Theoretical Model

Cited by 34 publications

References 67 publications

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

Gender Influences on Managerial Style and Conflict Resolution Effectiveness in Work Organisations in South-Western, Nigeria

Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation¹