2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2010.02.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of job assignment and human capital endowments in explaining gender differences in job performance and promotion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(27 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the absence of data on individual output, studies on pay differences and promotion decisions conventionally use human capital-related proxy variables (such as tenure and education level) to control for potential productivity differences among workers. Additionally, some studies have used supervisors' performance evaluation scores of employees to proxy for actual productivity (e.g., Bartel 1995;Flabbi and Ichino 2001;Pekkarinen and Vartiainen 2006;Pema and Mehay 2010). The problem with this approach is that performance evaluations may be biased measures of actual productivity (Waldman and Avolio 1986;Prendergast and Topel 1993), most notably because supervisors tend to give more lenient and compressed evaluation ratings when they know that the ratings are used for administrative purposes (Jawahar and Williams 1997;Moers 2005).…”
Section: Motivation and Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the absence of data on individual output, studies on pay differences and promotion decisions conventionally use human capital-related proxy variables (such as tenure and education level) to control for potential productivity differences among workers. Additionally, some studies have used supervisors' performance evaluation scores of employees to proxy for actual productivity (e.g., Bartel 1995;Flabbi and Ichino 2001;Pekkarinen and Vartiainen 2006;Pema and Mehay 2010). The problem with this approach is that performance evaluations may be biased measures of actual productivity (Waldman and Avolio 1986;Prendergast and Topel 1993), most notably because supervisors tend to give more lenient and compressed evaluation ratings when they know that the ratings are used for administrative purposes (Jawahar and Williams 1997;Moers 2005).…”
Section: Motivation and Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Top and middle positions are therefore male-dominated and men replicate the traditional HR management, assigning challenging tasks mostly to males (De Pater et al, 2010) and offering less career opportunities to women. Moreover, women need to show higher ability and higher performance than men to be promoted to the same job (Lazear and Rosen, 1990;Pema and Mehay, 2010). Gender gap in promotions and careers is the obvious consequence.…”
Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on gender-specific labour market segmentation analyses the job context, for example the establishment, the branch or the profession, as a further factor, which may influence the individual wage or gender wage gaps (see e.g. Busch andHolst, 2009, 2011;Pema and Mehay, 2010;Palomino and Peyrache, 2010;Wolf et al, 2012). In typical female professions, wages are on average lower than in typical male professions (see Blau et al, 2010;Reskin and Bielby, 2005;Palomino and Peyrache, 2010; Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ), 2011, p. 139).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%