Bringing Managers Back In: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093 · see citing works
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949 · see citing works
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Li, D., Raymond, L., & Bergman, P. (2020) · doi:10.3386/w27736 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
- Authors
- Castilla, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Castilla, Emilio J.
- ORCID
- Castilla, Emilio J.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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