Cited by 160Gender Diversity and InequalityNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Bringing Managers Back In: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality

Castilla, Emilio J.·2011·American Sociological Review

Abstract

While great progress has been made in documenting that organizational practices affect workplace inequality, little is known about how managers in particular may shape the careers of the employees below them. Using unique longitudinal personnel data on managers and their subordinates, this study identifies and tests for evidence of three distinct mechanisms by which managers potentially influence the assessment of employee performance in the workplace: (1) social network influence between employees’ current and former managers; (2) manager–manager (horizontal) homophily; and (3) manager–employee (vertical) homophily. I find evidence of the independent effects of all three mechanisms of managerial influence on the outcome of disagreement in the performance evaluation ratings of the same worker between former and current managers. In particular, my results stress that both managerial network influence and horizontal homophily affect the process of employee performance assessments, over and above the well-studied vertical homophily mechanism. I conclude by discussing the theoretical implications of these findings for future research regarding the interactional aspects of workplace inequality within contemporary organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0003122411420814

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All quality measures considered (hiring rates, performance ratings, and promotion rates) are based on manager discretion and potentially subject to evaluation and mentoring biases.

    “Finally, we note that all of the quality measures we consider-hiring rates, performance ratings, and promotion rates-are based on the discretion of managers and therefore potentially subject to various types of evaluation and mentoring biases (Rivera and Tilcsik, 2019; Quadlin, 2018; Castilla, 2011).”

    From Hiring as Exploration (2020) · cites this paper as Castilla, 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Castilla, E. J.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Castilla, Emilio J.
Venue
American Sociological Review
Published
2011-09-20
Volume
76
Issue
5
Pages
667-694
ISSN
  • 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-8271
OpenAlex
W1971592794
Cited by
160
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
workplace inequality, managerial influence, performance evaluation (human resources), social networks, homophily, manager-subordinate relations, organizational practices

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