CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 210Gender Diversity and InequalityEmployment, Labor, and Gender StudiesLabour Market and Migration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Engendering Change: Organizational Dynamics and Workplace Gender Desegregation, 1975–2005

Huffman, Matt L., Cohen, Philip N., Pearlman, Jessica·2010·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examine workplace-level sources of gender inequality to explore the link between organizational change and levels of workplace gender integration over time. To do so, we analyze the gender division of labor and key structural aspects of U.S. private-sector work establishments, using longitudinal data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1975 to 2005. We find that women's presence in managerial positions is positively related to gender integration, as is both establishment size and growth. Additionally, the results show that trends toward gender integration are due to change within workplaces rather than new, relatively integrated workplaces entering the population overtime. Our results also provide compelling evidence that the effect of female managers varies dramatically across organizational contexts, with the strongest desegregating effects in larger and growing establishments. Finally, the effect of women's access to organizational power structures has sharply diminished overtime.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 107 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Castilla E., 2007, Dynamic Analyses in the Social Sciences
  2. 10.1086/230269 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1177/000312240206700404 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/000312240306800308 · DOI
  5. Preston S., 2001, Demography: Modeling Population Processes
  6. 10.1177/000312240306800101 · DOI
  7. 10.1177/000312240006500204 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Yelnosky M. J., 2003, Ohio State Law Journal, 64, 1385

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–210 of 210

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-06
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
255-277
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
DOI
10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255
OpenAlex
W2116393619
Cited by
210
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
FWCI
29.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Labour Market and Migration
Keywords
gender inequality, organizational change, gender division of labor, women in management, establishment size, business growth, organizational power structures

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