MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985899292 · doi:10.1108/17542410910930716

Are managerial women in “extreme jobs” disadvantaged?

2009· article· en· W1985899292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald J. Burke, Lisa Fıksenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueGender in Management An International Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedPsychologyJob satisfactionWork (physics)Work hoursSocial psychologyDemographyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender in Management An International JournalSame topicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207