No abstract

We investigated why women may have lower desires and intentions to apply to become a member of a leadership group (i.e., committee) than men when the majority of its members are men. In four studies, we examined the interaction between gender and gender composition of the leadership group on leader candidates’ sense of power, desire to lead, and intentions to apply to become a member of a leadership group. Informed by research on gender, perceived power, and the model of goal-directed behavior, we found that women, compared to men, expected lower sense of power when considering applying to a majority-male (vs. gender-balanced) online leadership committee (Study 1A, N = 294; Study 1B, N = 278). This pattern observed for women in majority-male leadership committees was not, however, evident for men in majority female leadership committees (Study 2, N = 560). Furthermore, women’s lower sense of power explained why they expressed lower desires to lead and intentions to apply for a majority-male leadership committee compared to men. Finally, we found that increasing women’s sense of power increased their desires and intentions to lead in a majority-male committee (Study 3, N = 460). We contribute to understanding why there still exists a discrepancy in the number of men versus women in leadership groups despite ongoing efforts to reduce it. We hope readers will apply these findings by identifying ways to increase women leader candidates’ sense of power in order to increase women’s representation on leadership committees and groups (e.g., boards).

No abstract

We build on deontic justice and moral foundations theories to shed light on responses to sexual misconduct at work by proposing a model that explains why some third parties punish accusing victims and support alleged perpetrators. We theorize that when third parties are given conflicting he-said, she-said information, they intuitively evaluate organizational injustice based on moral values. We further theorize that binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) give rise to sympathy toward men accused of sexual misconduct and anger toward female accusers. Across five studies (total n = 5,413) utilizing archival, field, and vignette designs, we examined third-party responses to sexual misconduct accusations ranging in severity across several industries. Third-party endorsement of binding moral foundations was linked to increased perpetrator-directed sympathy and victim-directed anger (Studies 1–4). These emotions jointly mediated the relationship between binding values and credibility perceptions of the accusing victim and the alleged perpetrator (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, victim credibility was negatively associated with social sanctions and punishment severity levied toward the accusing victim, and perpetrator credibility was negatively associated with the same punishment outcomes for the alleged perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4). In Study 5, we found that managers framing the accusing victim as disloyal exacerbated negative judgments and emotions toward the victim and positive judgments and emotions toward the perpetrator for individuals who highly ascribe to binding moral foundations. We discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications of moral concerns on third parties’ emotions, judgments, and motivations to punish actors involved in sexual misconduct allegations. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1652 .

No abstract