MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027439479 · doi:10.1108/17542411011056877

Gender influences on career success outcomes

2010· article· en· W2027439479 on OpenAlex
Barbara Orser, Joanne Leck

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGender in Management An International Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOriginalityContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)Social psychologyCompensation (psychology)PerceptionValue (mathematics)Career developmentSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Models of career success outcomes have specified that gender is one covariate, among many. Theoretical reasons why gender is better specified as a moderating variable are advanced. The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically how gender moderates that influence of personal and structural factors on objective (total compensation, and ascendency), and subjective (perceived success) career outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The research draws on a sample of 521 chief executive officers (CEOs), executives and managers. Multivariable (step‐wise) linear regression was employed to examine simultaneously the influence of the predictor variables on career success outcomes. Findings Even after controlling for explanatory influences on career success, gender influences remained. Gender moderated the predictive influence of international experience on compensation, ascendancy, and perceived success. The findings also illustrate that career development models should be situated by (private versus public) sector and specify systemic gender differences in career success outcomes. Research limitations/implications The survey response rate was problematic. A response rate of 9 percent was lower than ideal. In this context, scholars note low‐response rates in mail surveys targeted at senior executives and CEOs. The attending limitation of self‐report responses and retrospective perceptions are also acknowledged. Practical implications The findings alert women about the importance of career preparation (role investment), such as graduate education and international experience, key credentials to executive‐level advancement. Women executives are also encouraged to seek clarification about compensation relative to their male counterparts. Originality/value Most studies about career success are mute with respect to how gender moderates the strength of personal and structural predictors on career outcomes. Given evidence about gender differences in how managers perceive success, examination about the influence of gender on subjective career outcomes is also warranted. Finally, the preponderance of studies about women's career experiences are based on American samples and/or sectors such as high‐tech. Public and service‐based industries, sectors historically populated with women, are often excluded from research. This work addresses the need for generalization by drawing on a across sector of Canadian managers, executives, and CEOs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.217 · 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