Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although qualified women are entering professional and managerial ranks within organizations, they continue to have difficulties in advancing their careers. It has been suggested that the biggest obstacle to women's career advancement lies in the attitudes, biases and prejudices of their male colleagues and their organizational cultures. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of perceptions of organizational bias among managerial and professional women and their work satisfactions and levels of psychological well‐being. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 215 women, a 67 percent response rate, using anonymously completed questionnaires. Respondents worked for a large Turkish bank that had offices in several cities. Findings Women reporting greater perceptions of bias indicated less job satisfaction, lower levels of work engagement and higher levels of job stress; perceptions of bias were not related to intentions to quit however. In addition, women reporting greater perceptions of organizational bias indicated higher levels of exhaustion but these perceptions were unrelated to levels of self‐reported psychosomatic symptoms. Interestingly, more educated women reported higher levels of perceived organizational bias. Research limitations/implications Implications for women's job performance and career advancement as well as suggestions for addressing potential gender bias are offered. Originality/value The paper adds to knowledge about the work and career experiences of women in Turkey and the challenges they face.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".