The Effects of Gendered Occupational Roles on Men’s and Women’s Workplace Authority: Evidence from Microfinance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gendering of occupational roles affects a variety of outcomes for workers and organizations. We examine how the gender of an initial role occupant influences the authority enjoyed by individuals who subsequently fill that role. We use data from a microfinance bank in Central America to examine how working initially with a male or female loan manager shapes borrowers’ compliance with future managers’ directives. First, we show that borrowers originally paired with female managers continue to be less compliant with subsequent managers, regardless of subsequent managers’ gender. Next, we demonstrate how compliance is shaped by the gender-typing of the role and the gender of the individual who fills that role. We find that men enjoy significantly greater compliance in male-typed roles, but male and female managers experience similar levels of compliance in female-typed roles. Further analyses reveal that these gendered patterns become especially pronounced after managers demonstrate their authority by disciplining borrowers. Overall, we show how quickly gendered expectations become inscribed into occupational roles, and we identify their lasting organizational consequences. More broadly, we suggest authority mechanisms that may contribute to the “stalled” gender revolution in the workplace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".