Search

Network formation is a key element of newcomer socialization; however, little is understood about how newcomer networks are formed in higher education. Drawing on a series of interviews with 34 new pre-tenure faculty members, we propose that just as individual and organizational socialization tactics interactively influence newcomer adjustment (Gruman, Saks, & Zweig, 2006), so too will they affect new faculty experiences with network formation. Our findings support this proposal; that is, individual employee characteristics, the practices of specific departments within the larger university, and the interaction between the two, create different degrees of network integration for faculty. Further, we find that in the context of university departments, organizational tactics may have a more significant effect on network development (and potentially other socialization outcomes) than those that stem from the individual. Building upon these findings, we also identify factors that facilitate new faculty network development and use these factors to suggest practical guidance for universities striving to enhance new faculty integration.

We develop a new status construction theory argument that apparently valid social realities in which a salient social difference is consistently linked to signs of status and competence induce participants to form status beliefs. Supporting this social validity account, an experiment showed that when an influence hierarchy developed between categorically different actors and appeared to be consensually accepted in the situation and therefore valid, participants formed strongly differentiated status beliefs about the categorical distinction. Yet when slight challenges to these influence hierarchies broke the validating consensus, participants' status beliefs were significantly weaker and less clear. An implication is that acts of resistance can disrupt the emergence of new status beliefs, so that while some differences become axes of status inequality, others do not. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

We develop a new status construction theory argument that apparently valid social realities in which a salient social difference is consistently linked to signs of status and competence induce participants to form status beliefs. Supporting this social validity account, an experiment showed that when an influence hierarchy developed between categorically different actors and appeared to be consensually accepted in the situation and therefore valid, participants formed strongly differentiated status beliefs about the categorical distinction. Yet when slight challenges to these influence hierarchies broke the validating consensus, participants' status beliefs were significantly weaker and less clear. An implication is that acts of resistance can disrupt the emergence of new status beliefs, so that while some differences become axes of status inequality, others do not., How do apparently nominal social differences between people become status differences that create axes of inequality in socially accorded esteem? A society's status distinctions have social histories after all. Some [...]

We present evidence that many of the disadvantaging effects that motherhood has on women's workplace outcomes derive from the devalued social status attached to the task of being a primary caregiver. Using expectation states theory, we argue that when motherhood becomes a salient descriptor of a worker it, like other devalued social distinctions including gender, downwardly biases the evaluations of the worker's job competence and suitability for positions of authority. We predict that the biases evoked by the motherhood role will be more strongly discriminatory than those produced by gender alone because the perceived conflicts between the cultural definitions of the good mother and the ideal worker make motherhood seem more directly relevant to workplace performance.

Previous research documents how stereotypes discourage young women from choosing and attaining technology jobs. We build off this research and ask whether (and how) stereotypes continue to affect men and women once they enter the technology workforce. Using a novel survey of technical employees from seven Silicon Valley firms and new measures of what we call "cultural" and "skill" alignment, we show that men are more likely than women to believe they possess the stereotypical traits and skills of a successful tech employee. We find that cultural alignment is especially important: because women are less likely than men to believe they match the cultural image of successful tech workers, they are less likely to identify with the tech profession, less likely to report positive supervisor treatment, and more likely to consider switching career fields. This paper is the first to use unique and independent measures of cultural and skill alignment comparing employees' perceptions of themselves to their perceptions of an ideal successful worker. By allowing cultural and skill alignment to operate separately, we are able to determine which work outcomes are most strongly related to each form of alignment. Our results imply that if we can broaden the cultural image of a successful tech worker, women may be more likely to feel like they belong in technology environments, ultimately increasing their retention in tech jobs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]