The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cracking the Glass Cages? Restructuring and Ascriptive Inequality at Work
Abstract
This study shows that the organization of work, particularly the structure of jobs, can sustain or erode gender and racial disadvantage. Restructuring work around team work and weaker job boundaries can improve women’s and minorities’ visibility and reduce stereotyping and thus should reduce their career disadvantage. Proponents of bureaucratic formalization argue, in contrast, that relaxing formal job definitions and emphasizing social relations at work will deepen ascriptive disadvantage. The reorganization of work in corporate America over the last two decades provides a test case. Using unique data on the life histories of more than 800 organizations, the author examines whether alleviating job segregation leads to better career outcomes for women and minorities. This study finds that when employers adopt popular team and training programs that increase cross‐functional collaboration, ascriptive inequality declines. Similar programs that do not transcend job boundaries do not lead to such increases. The results point to different effects at the intersection of gender and race.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 9,708
Hsiao, C. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139839327 · Cited by 7,869
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667087 · Cited by 2,433
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052
Self-citationInteraction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657301 · Cited by 939
The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality
Western, B. (2002) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240206700403 · Cited by 711
Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective
Bunderson, J. S. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556637 · Cited by 527
Minimizing Workplace Gender and Racial Bias
Bielby, W. T. (2000) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2654937 · Cited by 311
Cited by
Organizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power, and Environments
Stainback, K., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (2010) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120014 · Cited by 293
Castilla, E. J. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0950 · Cited by 255
A Multi-Level Process Model for Understanding Diversity Practice Effectiveness
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0044 · Cited by 233
Engendering Change: Organizational Dynamics and Workplace Gender Desegregation, 1975–2005
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255 · Cited by 210
A multi-level framework of inclusive leadership in organizations
Nishii, L. H., & Leroy, H. (2022) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011221111505 · Cited by 189
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalev, A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1591-1643
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W2081101305
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 28.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
