Search results

In this study, the authors assessed the usability of e-recruitment websites in the 50 states and the 50 largest American businesses. It is found that states were much less likely than businesses to accept online job applications. For example, it is impossible to apply online for a state government position in the three largest states. When it was possible to apply online for a state government job, the websites tended to be less user-friendly and informative than their private-sector counterparts. The major exception to this pattern was that the state government websites tended to be less secretive about pay rates. Because of the digital divide, state governments cannot rely exclusively on online applications. However, state governments should be able to offer a more advanced online job application process. The authors conclude by discussing implications for e-democracy, offering suggestions for research and practice, and identifying the two states with the least advanced recruitment practices.

When organizations publicly post notices of promotional opportunities, they often must justify the rejection of unsuccessful applicants, and may therefore decide to rate all applicants. When the process is less public, however, selectors are not required to assign ratings to inferior candidates. We hypothesized that selectors would gather less information on inferior candidates when they were not required to rate them than when they were so required. Results of a study of 157 managers using an information display board methodology confirmed our hypothesis. Contrary to previous research in consumer behavior, individual proxies for "product familiarity," such as number of years of previous work experience, were not related to information-gathering behavior.

PurposeThis paper aims to test penis panic theory, which predicts that trans women will face more discrimination than trans men in some but not all situations.Design/methodology/approachRespondents were 262 American college students who were all enrolled in the same undergraduate course. They were presented with a case about coworker resistance to transgender employees' use of the workplace restrooms of their choice. Four versions of a case were randomly distributed as follows: trans woman, restroom with one toilet; trans woman, restroom with three toilets; trans man, restroom with one toilet and trans man, restroom with three toilets.FindingsThe authors observed greater discrimination against trans women compared to trans men when there was one toilet but not when there were three toilets. This supports penis panic theory.Research limitations/implicationsThe chief limitation was the use of American college students as respondents. The results may not generalize to practicing managers especially in other countries. Future researchers should develop a scale to measure situational discrimination against trans women. This study should be replicated in other contexts to deepen the understanding of discrimination against trans men and trans women with disabilities, as well as discrimination against nonbinary individuals who identify as neither trans men nor trans women.Practical implicationsEmployers need to search for situations in which trans women face greater discrimination than trans men, because they can be resolved in ways that protect the rights of transgender employees no matter how transphobic their coworkers may be. Also, employers need a nuanced approach to combat discrimination that recognizes the unique perspectives of trans men, trans women and other members of the transgender community.Originality/valueThis is the first quantitative study of penis panic theory, and it illuminates the understanding of discrimination against transgender individuals.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to enhance the understanding of employers' responses to the restroom requests of transgender employees, and to assess the ability as educators to reduce transphobia in the students.Design/methodology/approach– Subjects were 194 undergraduate business students at a medium-sized public university in the northeastern USA who were enrolled in an undergraduate course in organizational behavior. During class, they read a brief case which asked the students to play the role of a CEO in Little Rock, Arkansas, receiving a complaint from a female employee about using the same restroom as a coworker who is transitioning from male to female.Findings– The most inclusive response was also the rarest, with only 27 percent of students recommending unisex bathrooms. Hostile actions, forcing the transitioning employee to use the men's restroom, were recommended by 38 percent of those who correctly realized that an employee would be unprotected by sexual orientation discrimination law in this case and by 30 percent of those who thought that she could sue for that type of discrimination in that jurisdiction.Research limitations/implications– It would be interesting to replicate this with non-student samples such as human resource managers and executives. The use of a US sample and of a text-based case can also be viewed as weaknesses. Because gender identity is embodied, self-constructed, and socially constructed, no single research study can capture the totality of work life for transgender employees.Practical implications– Transphobia is so powerful that a substantial percentage of the students recommended courses of action that they believed to be illegal even though the study was designed to discourage a hostile response. Employers that are concerned about transgender rights will need to do a lot more than just grafting the word "transgender" onto their extant set of policies.Social implications– Since today's business students are tomorrow's business leaders, the authors could eventually make the business world more tolerant if the authors could identify a message that resonates with the students and causes them to re-evaluate their homophobia and transphobia.Originality/value– Empirical studies of transgender issues have been dominated by the qualitative approach, so there is a need for more quantitative research on this topic. The hostile responses usually indicated greater acceptance of transgender employees who have completed gender reassignment surgery. This seems difficult to reconcile with a conception of transphobia as a generalized distaste towards all those who transgress gender norms.

Transgender employees may suffer from discrimination due to transphobia. This article evaluates a pedagogical intervention designed to reduce the transphobia of North American undergraduate business students. Participants were enrolled in an organizational behavior course. They resolved a simulated dispute between coworkers over accommodating the bathroom choices of a transgender employee. Answers were classified as demonstrating inclusion, compliance, or hostility with the inclusive response being the establishment of gender-neutral restrooms and the hostile response being refusal to accept the transgender employee's bathroom choice. In the first year, 194 students completed the exercise with no advance preparation, while in the second year, 221 students performed the same task after reading a brief article about transgender employees. Results suggest that the intervention was effective as the inclusive response was most popular in the second year even though it had been least popular in the first year. Complete success was not attained, as one sixth of the students in the second year chose hostile responses. Implications for research, teaching, and practice are discussed.