Can a familiar gender stereotype create a not‐so‐familiar benefit for women? Evidence of gendered differences in ascribed stereotypes and effects of team member adaptivity on performance evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Our research examines the differential effects of stereotypically feminine work behavior—team member adaptivity—on performance evaluations. Team member adaptivity requires being accommodating to changing relational and situational demands to achieve interdependent work goals. As such, women who engage in team member adaptivity will be recognized and rewarded more in their performance evaluations compared to men. We tested our model across three studies. As hypothesized, the results of Experimental Study 1 ( N = 600) demonstrated team member adaptivity is subject to a gendered stereotype and ascribed to women more so than to men. Building on this finding, Field Study 2 ( N = 96) demonstrated that team member adaptivity was positively related to performance evaluations for women but not for men. Study 3 used multi‐source dyadic data obtained from managers and their supervisors ( N = 141) and demonstrated that women who engage in team member adaptivity receive more favorable performance evaluations than their male counterparts. Together, these studies demonstrated the benefits of team member adaptivity for women more so than for men. This research extends our understanding of social role theory as well as the outcomes of adaptive performance while also offering several avenues for future scholarship with the potential to address ongoing gender inequities 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".