Effects of Gender on Arbitrators' Decisions.

Bigoness, William J.; DuBose, Philip B.

doi:10.2307/256214

Cited by 24 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some research has found that men are punished more than women (Bemmels, 1988;Harris, Evans, & Beckett, 2011;Rose & Prell, 1955), other research has found that women are punished more than men (Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, & Kazama, 2007;Keeves & Westphal, 2021;Lee & Huang, 2018;Rehg et al, 2008). Still other research has found no evidence for gender differences in the likelihood of being punished (Bigoness & DuBose, 1985).…”

Section: When Is Punishment Enacted In Bounded and Boundaryless Organ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

What We (Do Not) Know About Punishment Across Organizational Boundaries

Frey

Adams

Pfeffer

et al. 2022

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though organizational scholars have studied punishment for decades, recent examples of punishment in organizations cannot be fully explained by the scholarly literature. This may be because much of our prior understanding of punishment has been based on studies in highly bounded organizations, but with the shift to remote work arrangements and contract or freelance work, modern organizations are becoming increasingly boundaryless. Does punishment in bounded organizations look different than punishment in boundaryless organizations? To answer this question, we review and categorize the literature on punishment in organizations according to the boundedness of the organization it examined. We find that though there are similarities in punishment in bounded and boundaryless organizations, punishment in boundaryless organizations involves different actors, punishing different situations, for different reasons, using different methods. However, many questions about punishment in boundaryless organizations remain, including about the pervasiveness, motivations, and impacts that punishment has in boundaryless organizations.

show abstract

Section: When Is Punishment Enacted In Bounded and Boundaryless Organ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

What We (Do Not) Know About Punishment Across Organizational Boundaries

Frey

Adams

Pfeffer

et al. 2022

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A dummy variable was set up for each category in order to measure cases where an employee engaged in more than one category of behaviour. Second, the severity of the misbehaviour reflecting how obnoxiously, offensively, harmfully and/or violently the most prominent act of misbehaviour manifested was incorporated via the use of a fivepoint scale ranging from "not particularly serious" to "extremely serious" (Bigoness and DuBose, 1985). Third, the explanation employees provide to arbitrators for engaging in the alleged misbehaviour was measured categorically using the three classifications identified in Southey's (2010) employee explanation typology.…”

Section: Measuring the Variables For The Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

To fight, sabotage or steal: are all forms of employee misbehaviour created equal?

Southey

2016

IJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The endless manifestation of employee misbehaviours can be classified according to Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) employee deviance typology. Using this typology, the purpose of this paper is to examine the level of “judicial” tolerance for offences committed by employees across Australian workplaces that culminated in an arbitration hearing before the country’s federal industrial tribunal. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis was performed on 565 misbehaviour related, unfair dismissal arbitration decisions made by Australia’s federal industrial tribunal between July 2000 and July 2010. Using the count data that resulted, a logistic regression model was developed to determine which unfair dismissal claim characteristics influenced whether or not a dismissal was deemed to be an appropriate course of disciplinary action. Findings The results suggest that an arbitrator’s gender, experience and background have influence on his or her decision. Significance tests also verified that personal aggression, production deviance, political deviance and property deviance were all considered unacceptable in Australian workplaces. Importantly, the results enable the ordering of the range of tolerance. From this ordering, a picture emerged as to what factor may be framing the extremities of the arbitrators’ tolerance for the misbehaviours: the target (or victim) of the behaviour. Research limitations/implications Unfair dismissal claims that are settled through private conciliation, as they occur off the public record, could not be included in the analysis. Practical implications Society’s implicit stakeholder interest in what constitutes appropriate workplace behaviour is further testament to the HRM obligation to facilitate sustainable workforces. Management should consider whether dismissing a misbehaving employee is a reactionary approach to broader organisational issues associated with employee well-being and cultural norms. In order to contribute to sustainable workforces, HRM policies and actions should focus on limiting triggers that drive misbehaviour, particularly behaviours that result in harm to individuals as a matter of priority, followed closely by triggers to behaviours that result in harm to organisational profitability. Originality/value This paper presents new insights about the degrees to which various forms of employee misbehaviour are accepted in the workplace.

show abstract

“…In the realm of labor arbitration, a number of studies have examined the effect of gender, with mixed results. Zirkel (1983), looking at 369 labor arbitration decision, and Bigoness and Dubose (1985), using 80 students as mock arbitrators, found no difference between decisions of male and female arbitrators. Scott and Shadoan (1989) tested to see if female arbitrators issue less severe judgments than male arbitrators, but their empirical findings failed to identify any significant differences between the genders.…”

Section: Professional Experiences and Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision-Maker and Context Effects in Employment Arbitration

Gough¹,

Colvin

2019

ILR Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a novel survey of 274 employment arbitrators, this study investigates how decision-maker characteristics and the context of the arbitration proceeding affect employee outcomes. The authors analyze the predictors of settlement before an arbitrator award and, if no settlement is reached, the likelihood that an employee will receive a favorable verdict after a full hearing. Findings show that pre-arbitration dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation, have significant effects on settlement behavior and employee outcomes. The characteristics of the presiding arbitrator as well as the structure of the arbitration proceeding also influence employee outcomes at trial. This study contributes to the existing literature by describing the characteristics of employment arbitrators—an underexplored actor in industrial relations. In addition, it analyzes case outcomes, including settlements, across multiple arbitration forums and with more rigorous controls than those applied in existing data sets.

show abstract

Effects of Gender on Arbitrators' Decisions.

Cited by 24 publications

References 14 publications

What We (Do Not) Know About Punishment Across Organizational Boundaries

What We (Do Not) Know About Punishment Across Organizational Boundaries

To fight, sabotage or steal: are all forms of employee misbehaviour created equal?

Decision-Maker and Context Effects in Employment Arbitration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About