Cooperative organizational cultures: a factor promoting equal gender representation in leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the relationship between feminine gender identity and leadership intention. Based on the theory of planned behavior and social role theory, the indirect relationship between feminine gender identity and leadership intention was analyzed through affective motivation to lead and perceived leadership self-efficacy. In addition, drawing on the person–environment fit theory, feminine gender identity was examined as a moderator of the relationship between cooperative organizational culture and leadership intention. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey was administered among a sample of 183 full-time employees. Findings Results demonstrated that controlling for sex, perceived leadership self-efficacy mediated the relationship between feminine gender role identity and leadership intention. In addition, feminine gender role identity acted as a moderator in strengthening the relationship between cooperative organizational culture and leadership intention such that highly feminine individuals in high cooperative organizational cultures showed higher intentions to become leaders than did individuals with less feminine identities. Research limitations/implications In research on leadership intentions, it will be important to measure both sex and gender, as gender identity explains variance in important outcomes over and above sex. In addition, beginning to include organizational characteristics (such as perception of culture) in this stream of research is important. Practical implications Organizations wishing to promote more feminine individuals to leadership roles should examine their organizational culture to determine if it is cooperative, as this type of culture allows these individuals to be more intent on seeking leadership roles. Originality/value This research adds up to the literature by looking at an organizational factor, culture, and analyzing its role in increasing leadership intention in highly feminine individuals. In addition, by studying gender while controlling for sex, this paper suggests that regardless of sex (being a female or a male), feminine individuals will benefit from a cooperative environment. This includes any individuals (females and males) that identify more with communal behaviors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".