Management

Purpose In this study we evaluate competing models of the direct and indirect effects of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) on two turnover intentions relevant to scientists and engineers: (i) leaving R&D for non-R&D work within the same organization and (ii) leaving one's organization for another one. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional design was used. Our sample consists of almost 500 scientists and engineers in dual-earner families and with dependent care responsibilities. Findings We find some support for the domain-specific predictors-to-outcomes model: FIW indirectly (but not directly) increases intentions to change organization through work dissatisfaction. Contrary to expectations from the stress management model we find neither direct nor indirect relationships between WIF and turnover intentions. Implications Our findings suggest that organizations that help employees manage the effects of FIW on work dissatisfaction may be able to reduce the turnover among their technical workforce. Originality/value The study examines an overlooked outcome of work-family conflict: turnover intentions. In addition, it provides much needed attention to the implications of workfamily conflict for scientists and engineers, who have received little attention in the work-family conflict literature despite longstanding efforts to understand the relationship between marriage, parenthood, and productivity in these fields.

This article explores how the diversity of board resources and the number of women on boards affect firms' corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings, and how, in turn, CSR influences corporate reputation. In addition, this article examines whether CSR ratings mediate the relationships among board resource diversity, gender composition, and corporate reputation. The OLS regression results using lagged data for independent and control variables were statistically significant for the gender composition hypotheses, but not for the resource diversitybased hypotheses. CSR ratings had a positive impact on reputation and mediated the relationship between the number of women on the board and corporate reputation.

Purpose -This paper aims to evaluate alternative theories about how perceived innovativeness and perceived relational skills interact with gender to explain evaluations by managers of scientists and engineers' promotability into management. Design/methodology/approach -A cross-sectional design is used. The sample (n ¼ 2,278) is drawn from 24 large US corporations. Separate surveys are administered in each corporation to scientists and engineers and to managers evaluating them. Findings -Managers rate men and women equally promotable. Furthermore, women whom managers perceived to be especially innovative receive higher evaluations of promotability than similarly accomplished men. And, among those perceived to have low relational skills, women and men are evaluated similarly. Research limitations/implications -More research is needed to evaluate how ambivalent stereotypes and pressures from organizations to suppress categorical thinking might combine to affect evaluation and selection processes in diverse work settings. Practical implications -Companies should be concerned about the potential tendency for managers to reward a few individuals when they exceed stereotypical expectations. Employees should be aware of and actively manage the impressions that managers have of them with regard to innovativeness and relational skills. Originality/value -This paper calls attention to the role of ambivalence and legitimacy theories that predict that women will receive higher evaluations when they exceed stereotypical expectations of innovativeness and that when women do not meet stereotypical expectations of relational skills, managers will temper their harshness in evaluating them. In developing this analysis, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of evaluation processes by considering the context in which evaluations take place.

To help employees better manage work-life conflict, organizations have introduced various initiatives, which have met with mixed results. The present studies examined the utility of a procedurally based approach to understanding employees' reactions to work-life conflict. The authors examined whether the fairness of procedures used by organizational authorities to plan and implement decisions moderates the (inverse) relationship between work-life conflict and employees' organizational commitment. Three studies using different methodologies showed support for the moderating role played by procedural fairness. That is, the tendency for greater work-life conflict to lead to lower commitment was significantly less pronounced when procedural fairness was high rather than low. Theoretical contributions to the work-life conflict and organizational justice literatures are discussed, as are practical implications.

This paper examines the influence of the structural positions of different demographic groups in the science and engineering labor force on their access to the allocation of favorable work experiences and their effect on decisions about the evaluation of their performance. Our hypotheses challenge assumptions in the management literature that each group will necessarily express ingroup bias and outgroup derogation. Instead, we call attention to the status hierarchy that develops from status construction processes, the prototypicality that emerges from social categorization processes, and a framework of stereotype content that is based on an analysis of structural positions among groups in the society. Using hierarchical linear modeling with survey data from scientists and engineers in research and development in 24 major corporations, we find that U.S.-born white males, who constitute the normative ingroup, receive advantages in both allocation and evaluation decisions from all evaluators, not just from other white men. We also find that normative outgroups (non-male, non-whites, and/or non-U.S. born) receive ambivalent or indifferent more than discriminatory or biased treatment, depending on their structural position in relation to U.S.born white men, and that these effects are independent of who is doing the rating.•

Across three empirical studies, this paper explores the eVect of using e-mail as a communication medium (versus pen-and-paper) when conducting performance appraisals of peers. The notion put forth by Media Richness Theory that paper-form and e-mail media should be considered identical for conveying this information was theoretically challenged and diVerences were empirically supported. Using two diVerent settings, results demonstrate that evaluators oVered more negative appraisals of their peers when using e-mail than when using traditional paper-form methods. Reduced feelings of social obligation in the e-mail condition were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that social psychological processes can inXuence the eVects of diVerent media on peer ratings.  ), the use of electronic communication in performance appraisal processes has yet to be explored. This leaves open the question of whether there are any potential detriments to using this type of communication medium in performance appraisals that must be balanced against the potential beneWts (e.g., convenience, ease of use, etc.).

Two empirical studies are presented that explore how and why e-mail communication (versus face-to-face communication) influences cooperation in mixed motive group contexts. Results indicate that, relative to those engaging in face-to-face interaction, those who interacted via e-mail were (1) less cooperative and (2) felt more justified in being noncooperative. Feelings of justification mediated the relationship between communication media and the decision to cooperate or not.