Are managerial women in “extreme jobs” disadvantaged?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose It has been suggested that females may be disadvantaged in professions and organizations that require working long hours since females may choose to work fewer hours or may have to work fewer hours because of home and family responsibilities. The term “extreme jobs” has been used previously to describe jobs in which incumbents work 60 or more hours a week. The purpose of this paper is to compare female and male managers working 56 or more hours a week on personal and work situation characteristics, job behaviors, work and extra‐work outcomes and indicators of psychological well‐being. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 530 managerial and professional women and men in Canada using an anonymously completed questionnaire, about a 35 percent response rate. All had achieved their MBA degrees from the same university. Only those working 56 h a week or more were used in this research. Findings First, a slightly smaller percentage of females worked 56 or more hours a week. Second, females were significantly different from males on a number of personal and work situation characteristics (were younger, less likely to be married or to have children, had less job and organizational tenure). Third, there were few differences on stable individual difference characteristics, job behaviors, work outcomes, extra‐work satisfactions and psychological well‐being. Females did, however, indicate more psychosomatic symptoms, higher levels of satisfaction with friends, and tended to report higher levels of perfectionism and job stress. The work and non‐work experiences of females and males in these “extreme jobs” tended to be more similar than different. The few differences noted did indicate females to be somewhat disadvantaged. Research limitations/implications All data were collected using questionnaires raising the possibility of response set tendencies. Originality/value This paper describes one of the few studies that looks at the effects of “extreme jobs” on managerial women.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".