Fluent Essays

1. The second option is to use the Correll reading to explain the Zenger and Folkman found that when women assess their own leadership abilities, they rate themselves harshly.Final Paper You have two options for your final paper: 1. The first option is an analysis of the HRB case, Seaside Organics, in which you would respond to the following prompt: Compare and contrast the leadership of Sara Norton and Ernest Shackleton. If you choose this option, you would need to purchase the case online from Harvard Business Review ($8.95). The link is here. You can also google the title of the case: Seaside Organics. But make sure you are purchasing the case and not something else, i.e. make sure it’s from HBR and that it’s $8.95. 2. The second option is to use the Correll reading to explain the Zenger and Folkman finding that when women assess their own leadership abilities, they rate themselves harshly. If you choose this option, the two readings you will need are: Zenger, Jack and Joseph Folkman. 2019. “Research: Women Score Higher Than Men in Most Leadership Skills.” Harvard Business Review, June 25, 2019. Correll, Shelley J. 2004. “Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspirations.” American Sociological Review 69 (1): 93-113. Whichever option you choose, your response should be in essay format. Your essay should have an introduction, body, and conclusion. Your paper should be 3 pages, double-spaced, 12-point font, 1 in. margins. You should proof read your writing and, if possible, ask someone else to read your essay. Writing with errors and typos will lose points. You should cite sources. Please submit your responses on Quercus by midnight EST Tuesday April 6th.GENDER Research: Women Score Higher Than Men in Most Leadership Skills by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman JUNE 25, 2019 ALEX AND LAILA/GETTY IMAGES For the first time in history, a major political party in the United States has several women who have declared their candidacy to be their party’s presidential nominee. But TV pundits have been questioning whether, despite the progress indicated by the huge influx of women elected into https://hbr.org/topic/gender https://hbr.org/search?term=jack\%20zenger https://hbr.org/search?term=joseph\%20folkman Congress last fall, the U.S. is ever going to elect a woman to the country’s highest leadership position. This is baffling to us, especially in light of what we see in our corporate research. In two articles from 2012 (here and here) we discussed findings from our analysis of 360-degree reviews that women in leadership positions were perceived as being every bit as effective as men. In fact, while the differences were not huge, women scored at a statistically significantly higher level than men on the vast majority of leadership competencies we measured. We recently updated that research, again looking at our database of 360-degree reviews in which we ask individuals to rate each leaders’ effectiveness overall and to judge how strong they are on specific competencies, and had similar findings: that women in leadership positions are perceived just as — if not more — competent as their male counterparts. Still, the disturbing fact is that the percentage of women in senior leadership roles in businesses has remained relatively steady since we conducted our original research. Only 4.9\% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 2\% of S&P 500 CEOs are women. And those numbers are declining globally. There are of course many factors that contribute to this dearth of women at senior levels. For centuries, there have been broad, cultural biases against women and stereotypes die slowly. People have long believed that many women elect not to aspire to the highest ranks of the organization and take themselves out of the running (though recent research disputes that). Lots of research has shown that unconscious bias places a significant role in hiring and promotion decisions, which also contributes to the lower number of women in key positions. Our current data presents even more compelling evidence that this bias is incorrect and unwarranted. Women are perceived by their managers — particularly their male managers — to be slightly more effective than men at every hierarchical level and in virtually every functional area of the organization. That includes the traditional male bastions of IT, operations, and legal. As you can see in the chart below, women were rated as excelling in taking initiative, acting with resilience, practicing self-development, driving for results, and displaying high integrity and honesty. In fact, they were thought to be more effective in 84\% of the competencies that weHow do gender differences in career choic-es emerge? Understanding the gendered nature of the career choice process is important since, to the extent that men and women make different career-relevant choices throughout their lives, the labor force will continue to be segregated by gender. Gender segregation in paid work is stubbornly resilient, persisting despite other structural changes in society, changes such as the vast movement of women into paid work in recent decades (Jacobs 1989, 1995a; Jacobsen 1994; Reskin 1993) and the transformation of work content due to techno- logical changes and the increase in service sec- tor jobs (England 1981; Game and Pringle 1983; Reskin and Roos 1990; Tienda and Ortiz 1987). The distribution of men and women into dif- ferent kinds of occupations, firms, and estab- lishments is consequential, explaining the majority of the gender gap in wages (Peterson and Morgan 1995). Many explanations of this continued segre- gation have examined the impact of “demand- side” processes, a phrase referring to processes that lead to a greater demand for men when f illing more desirable jobs (Anker 1997; England 1992; Nelson and Bridges 1999; Reskin and Roos 1990). This paper focuses Constraints iinto PPreferences: Gender, SStatus, aand EEmerging CCareer AAspirations Shelley J. Correll Cornell University This study presents an experimental evaluation of a model that describes the constraining effect of cultural beliefs about gender on the emerging career-relevant aspirations of men and women. The model specifies the conditions under which gender status beliefs evoke a gender-differentiated double standard for attributing performance to ability, which differentially biases the way men and women assess their own competence at tasks that are career relevant, controlling for actual ability. The model implies that, if men and women make different assessments of their own competence at career-relevant tasks, they will also form different aspirations for career paths and activities believed to require competence at these tasks. Data from the experiment support this model. In one condition, male and female undergraduate participants completed an experimental task after being exposed to a belief that men are better at this task. In this condition, male participants assessed their task ability higher than female participants did even though all were given the same scores. Males in this condition also had higher aspirations for career-relevant activities described as requiring competence at the task. No gender differences were found in either assessments or aspirations in a second condition where participants were instead exposed to a belief that men and women have equal task ability. To illustrate the utility of the model in a “real world” (i.e., nonlaboratory) setting, results are compared to a previous survey study that showed men make higher assessments of their own mathematical ability than women, which con