Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how men and women sex stereotype managerial positions and how they view women in managerial roles in Egypt and the USA, in order to provide meaningful cross‐cultural comparisons. Design/methodology/approach The study uses surveys that utilize the Schein descriptive index and the women as managers scale (WAMS) to compare perceptions on women in managerial positions in Egypt and the USA. The sample consists of 553 Egyptian and 324 American management students. Findings The results show that in the Egyptian sample both males and females held negative views of women managers. However, in the US sample, women held more favourable views of women managers than did their male counterparts. In the Egyptian sample the English section female students had a more positive perception of female managers than their Arabic section counterparts. Research limitations/implications The sample is limited to management students in Egypt and the USA. The Middle East includes countries with different cultures, such as Israel. About 10 percent of Egypt's population are Christians who do not necessarily share the same cultural beliefs as the country's Muslim majority. Practical implications The paper helps donor countries better direct their aid programs when it comes to promoting gender equality and championing women's rights in the Middle East. Originality/value Our contribution was to study the perceptions of female leaders in Egypt, an Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern country. The gender research on countries with conservative cultures, such as Egypt, is an area that remains mostly unexamined. Our study aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a better understanding of the position of Egyptian women in management.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".