A model of gender prejudice, power, and discrimination: How hierarchy-enhancing factors predominate over hierarchy-attenuating factors

Gender inequalities remain an issue in our society and particularly in the workplace. Several factors can explain this gender difference in top-level managerial positions such as career ambitions but also biases against women. In our chapter, we propose a model explaining why gender inequalities and particularly discrimination against women is still present in our societies despite social norms and existing legislation on gender equality. To this purpose, we review research on discrimination through two different approaches, (a) a prejudice approach through the justification-suppression model developed by Crandall and Eshleman (2003) and (b) a power approach through the social dominance theory (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In our work, we integrate these two approaches and propose a model of gender prejudice, power and discrimination. The integration of these two approaches contributes to a better understanding of how discrimination against women is formed and maintained over time.

Why Women Rarely Rise to the Top: A Social Identity Model of Leader Prototypes.

Purpose We propose a social identity model of leader prototypes to address why the maleness of leader prototypes is more pronounced among men than among women (e.g., Schein, 2001). Specifically, we argue that individuals project their ingroup prototype (e.g., a male prototype) onto a valued other category (e.g., leaders) (e.g., Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003) in order to maintain a positive ingroup (e.g., gender) identity. We hypothesized that both women and men engage in ingroup projection of their gender prototype on their leader prototype, and we expected this effect to be stronger for men than women. We also investigated intelligence as a moderator of ingroup projection. Methodology Participants (276 students, University of Lausanne) assessed to what extent attributes on a list of gender traits were characteristic of a successful leader. We computed relative ingroup similarity scores (e.g., Waldzus & Mummendey, 2004) representing the difference between how characteristic ingroup traits are for a successful leader, and how characteristic outgroup traits are for a successful leader. Results Results showed that men engaged in ingroup projection while women engaged in outgroup projection, and that men engaged in ingroup projection to a greater extent. We also found a small, but positive effect of intelligence on ingroup projection among men. Limitations The use of a student sample might limit the external validity of our findings. Implications Our findings contribute to research on the under-representation of women in managerial roles, and introduce intelligence as a predictor of ingroup projection. Value Our study allows for a more fine-grained understanding of the cognitive representations of leaders of men and women.

Conclusions and future directions for sports events management scholarship

The book adopts a unique stakeholder perspective, structured around the groups and individuals who have an interest in and co-create sports events, including organising committees, promoters, sport organisations, spectators, community groups, sponsors, host governments, the media and NGOs. Each chapter addresses a specific stakeholder, defines that stakeholder and its relationships with sports events, describes the managerial requirements for a successful event, assesses current research and directions for future research, and outlines the normative dimensions of stakeholder engagement (such as sustainability and legacy)