IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v6y2017i2p45-d97421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gendered Perceptions of Cultural and Skill Alignment in Technology Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Alison T. Wynn

    (Department of Sociology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA)

  • Shelley J. Correll

    (Department of Sociology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA)

Abstract

Previous research documents how stereotypes discourage young women from choosing and attaining technology jobs. We build off this research and ask whether (and how) stereotypes continue to affect men and women once they enter the technology workforce. Using a novel survey of technical employees from seven Silicon Valley firms and new measures of what we call “cultural” and “skill” alignment, we show that men are more likely than women to believe they possess the stereotypical traits and skills of a successful tech employee. We find that cultural alignment is especially important: because women are less likely than men to believe they match the cultural image of successful tech workers, they are less likely to identify with the tech profession, less likely to report positive supervisor treatment, and more likely to consider switching career fields. This paper is the first to use unique and independent measures of cultural and skill alignment comparing employees’ perceptions of themselves to their perceptions of an ideal successful worker. By allowing cultural and skill alignment to operate separately, we are able to determine which work outcomes are most strongly related to each form of alignment. Our results imply that if we can broaden the cultural image of a successful tech worker, women may be more likely to feel like they belong in technology environments, ultimately increasing their retention in tech jobs.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison T. Wynn & Shelley J. Correll, 2017. "Gendered Perceptions of Cultural and Skill Alignment in Technology Companies," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:6:y:2017:i:2:p:45-:d:97421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/2/45/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/2/45/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Luis Uhlmann & Geoffrey Cohen, 2005. "Constructed Criteria. Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination," Post-Print hal-00516601, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tiffany Chow, 2022. "The Geography of Jobs: How Proximity to a Prestige Labor Market Shapes Opportunity for Computer Science Degree Holders," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Kathleen N. Smith & Joy Gaston Gayles, 2018. "“Girl Power”: Gendered Academic and Workplace Experiences of College Women in Engineering," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Sarah Thébaud & Maria Charles, 2018. "Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Kevin Boudreau & Nilam Kaushik, 2020. "The Gender Gap in Tech & Competitive Work Environments? Field Experimental Evidence from an Internet-of-Things Product Development Platform," NBER Working Papers 27154, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicole M Lindner & Alexander Graser & Brian A Nosek, 2014. "Age-Based Hiring Discrimination as a Function of Equity Norms and Self-Perceived Objectivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, January.
    2. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Shibashish Mukherjee & Sorin M.S. Krammer, 2024. "When the going gets tough : Board gender diversity in the wake of a major crisis," Post-Print hal-04522722, HAL.
    4. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo, 2016. "Field Experiments on Discrimination," NBER Working Papers 22014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. William Darity, 2013. "Confronting those affirmative action grumbles," Chapters, in: Jeannette Wicks-Lim & Robert Pollin (ed.), Capitalism on Trial, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Jean S. Clarke & Cheryl Hurst & Jennifer Tomlinson, 2024. "Maintaining the meritocracy myth : A critical discourse analytic study of leaders’ talk about merit and gender in academia," Post-Print hal-04479149, HAL.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:479-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Carolina Castagnetti & Luisa Rosti & Marina Töpfer, 2020. "Discriminate me — If you can! The disappearance of the gender pay gap among public‐contest selected employees in Italy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(6), pages 1040-1076, November.
    9. William T Self & Gregory Mitchell & Barbara A Mellers & Philip E Tetlock & J Angus D Hildreth, 2015. "Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Uhlmann, Eric Luis & Cohen, Geoffrey L., 2007. ""I think it, therefore it's true": Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 207-223, November.
    11. Punam Raj & Mrinalini Pandey & Asrana Khatoon, 2023. "Breaking the Mold-Analyzing Gender Stereotyping in the Workplace Through Bibliometric and Content Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    12. Ariella S. Kristal & Leonie Nicks & Jamie L. Gloor & Oliver P. Hauser, 2023. "Reducing discrimination against job seekers with and without employment gaps," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 211-218, February.
    13. Eric Luis Uhlmann & David A. Pizarro & David Tannenbaum & Peter H. Ditto, 2009. "The motivated use of moral principles," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 479-491, October.
    14. Raviv Murciano-Goroff, 2022. "Missing Women in Tech: The Labor Market for Highly Skilled Software Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3262-3281, May.
    15. Ben-Amar, Walid & Bujaki, Merridee & McConomy, Bruce & McIlkenny, Philip, 2021. "Gendering merit: How the discourse of merit in diversity disclosures supports the gendered status quo on Canadian corporate boards," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Maximilian Kasy, 2023. "Algorithmic bias and racial inequality: A critical review," Economics Series Working Papers 1015, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Moore, Celia & Tenbrunsel, Ann E., 2014. "“Just think about it”? Cognitive complexity and moral choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 138-149.
    18. Tierney, Warren & Hardy, Jay H. & Ebersole, Charles R. & Leavitt, Keith & Viganola, Domenico & Clemente, Elena Giulia & Gordon, Michael & Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus & Pfeiffer, Thomas & Uhlman, 2020. "Creative destruction in science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 291-309.
    19. Devi Vijay & Vivek G. Nair, 2022. "In the Name of Merit: Ethical Violence and Inequality at a Business School," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(2), pages 315-337, August.
    20. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo, 2016. "Field Experiments on Discrimination," NBER Working Papers 22014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Tyler Saxon, 2021. "Military Subsidization of Human Capital and Gender Stratification in the US Economy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 250-265, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:6:y:2017:i:2:p:45-:d:97421. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.