Avoiding backlash or proving one’s manhood?

Gender differences in negotiation are typically explained by processes that concern women (e.g., women anticipate backlash for assertive behavior). Research has begun to suggest that processes that concern men (e.g., men want to be seen as “real” men) also help to explain gender differences. However, these 2 approaches typically remain disconnected. Thus, we examined both types of processes in 3 studies examining people’s beliefs about the causes of gender differences in negotiation (total N = 931). Our studies showed that people endorsed to a similar, and sometimes even greater, extent processes that concern men as underlying gender differences in negotiation. Moreover, people’s beliefs about the causes of gender differences in negotiation were related to perceptions of the effectiveness of different diversity initiatives (i.e., interventions to reduce inequities) and willingness to support them

Are strategies for women in compensation negotiations more appealing when it is explained how they are meant to impact negotiation outcomes?

Women perceive specific strategies developed to support their performance in compensation negotiations as ineffective and are unlikely to use them—suggesting an implementation gap. We examined whether providing theoretical rationales—explaining how specific strategies are meant to work—attenuates this gap. Furthermore, we explored a novel cause of it: women's expectations regarding the perpetuation of gender roles upon using a strategy. In two studies (N = 1,254), we observed that regardless of the provision of the rationales, women expected all examined specific strategies to be less economically effective and most of them to perpetuate gender roles more than regular assertiveness. Moreover, especially women's expectations regarding economic outcomes decreased their intentions to use most specific strategies. Women also expected most specific strategies to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding, which again led to their lower intentions to use them. Altogether, negotiation trainers and educators should consider that explaining how specific strategies are meant to work is not enough to close the implementation gap and to reduce gender inequality in negotiations. To attenuate the implementation gap, they may need to enable women to more fully experience how using specific strategies can improve their negotiation performance

Is working from home a blessing or a burden? Home demands as a mediator of the relationship between work engagement and work-life balance

As COVID-19 pandemic made its incursion into the world of work in early 2020, many employees were compelled to work from home to slow down the transmission of the disease. Since then, it has been asked whether working from home is a blessing or a burden. We respond to this question by building on the Affective Events Theory to examine whether work engagement is related to work-life balance (WLB), and whether home demands mediate this relationship, using data from 219 knowledge workers drawn from universities in the South-eastern region of Nigeria primarily working from home when they were surveyed. Results of regression analysis using PROCESS macro showed that work engagement related positively to home demands; in turn, home demands related negatively to WLB. The results further revealed that work engagement related negatively to WLB and that home demands mediated the negative work engagement-WLB connection. Theoretical as well as practical implications of the study are discussed, limitations are highlighted, and suggestions for future research are outlined

Similar, but different: gender differences in working time arrangements and the work–life interface

Gender inequities can be partly traced back to gender differences in working time arrangements. In fact, it is established knowledge that women as compared to men are more (less) likely to work part-time (overtime). Based on social role theory, however, we also expect gender differences among part-time and overtime workers, such that women and men differ in why they work part-time or overtime. In a preregistered and highly powered study conducted in Germany (N = 3,844–17,361, depending on the analysis), we observed that, on average, women were more likely than men to work part-time (i.e., fewer than 35 hours per week) because of personal or family obligations. Moreover, in comparison to men, women were less likely to work overtime (i.e., at least two hours per week) to attain additional income, but more likely to work overtime to step in for colleagues. Altogether, people had “gendered” reasons to work certain hours. Furthermore, as people’s paid working time arrangements are intertwined with their lives outside of the workplace, we examined women’s and men’s work–life interface and observed that women (as compared to men) deemed it less acceptable to be available for work-related issues during leisure time. We discuss implications for future theorizing and for practitioners who aim to design work schedules that consider the different lived experiences of women and men

Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

Commentary - Women Ask Less Often Than Men Partly Because They Work Fewer Hours (Revised Manuscript)

A long debate in negotiation research concerns the question of whether gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations, in behaviors shown during negotiations, and in negotiation performance actually exist. Whereas past negotiation research suggested that women are less likely to initiate negotiations than men, a recent study by Artz et al. (2018) seems to suggest that women are as likely as men to “ask” for higher pay. However, this finding by Artz et al. (2018) was obtained once the number of weekly hours worked was added as a covariate in the statistical analysis. Following extant work, we suggest that the number of weekly hours worked could be—and, from a theoretical standpoint, perhaps should be—considered a mediator of gender differences. Conducting a Monte Carlo analysis based on the results and statistics provided by Artz et al. (2018) also yielded empirical evidence suggesting that weekly hours could be a mediator. Thus, women may be less likely than men to ask for higher pay, among other potential reasons, because they work fewer weekly hours. Based on this alternative conceptualization of the role of weekly hours, our commentary has theoretical implications for the understanding of gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations and practical implications for the effective reduction of gender inequalities