Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg October 18, 2018

Gleichgeschlechtliche Arbeitnehmer und Vorgesetzte: Der Effekt von Homophilie und Gruppenzusammensetzung auf Einkommensdifferenzen

Same-Sex Employees and Supervisors: The Effect of Homophily and Group Composition on Wage Differences
Christina Klug

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Aufsatz analysiert Einkommensunterschiede zwischen Arbeitnehmern mit Vorgesetzten mit gleichem oder anderem Geschlecht. Der Homophilie-Mechanismus sagt einen positiven Einkommenseffekt mit einem gleichgeschlechtlichen Vorgesetzten voraus. Um moderierende Effekte der Gruppenzusammensetzung identifizieren zu können, werden zusätzlich vier konkurrierende Theorien herangezogen. Die Hypothesen werden anhand der Daten des Bayerischen Absolventenpanels mit Fixed-Effects Panelregressionen getestet. Es zeigt sich, dass die Gruppenzusammensetzung beachtet werden muss, wenn man Einkommensunterschiede anhand von Homophilie untersucht. Männer haben in Minderheits- und Mehrheitsgruppen Einkommensvorteile. Hingegen erfahren Frauen in der Mehrheitsgruppe Nachteile, wenn der Vorgesetzte das gleiche Geschlecht hat.

Abstract

This article analyzes wage differences according to whether or not employees and their supervisors are of the same sex. The mechanism of homophily predicts that having supervisors of the same sex has a positive effect on wages. Additionally, we introduce four conflicting theories that consider group composition as a moderating factor. The hypotheses are tested with data from the Bavarian Graduate Panel via fixed-effect panel regressions. Results show that relative group sizes must be considered in order to see wage differences. These wage benefits emerge in minority and majority groups for male academics, but women earn less in majority groups when their supervisor is of the same sex.

References

Baron, J. & W. Bielby, 1980: Bringing the Firms Back in: Stratification, Segmentation, and the Organization of Work. American Sociological Review 45: 737–765.10.2307/2094893Search in Google Scholar

Blalock, H.M., 1967: Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

Blau, P.M., 1977: Inequality and Heterogeinity. New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brashears, M., 2008: Gender and homophily: Differences in male and female association in Blau space. Social Science Research 37: 400–415.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.004Search in Google Scholar

Brüderl, J., 2010: Kausalanalyse mit Paneldaten. S. 963–994 in: H. Best & C. Wolf (Hrsg.), Handbuch sozialwissenschaftliche Datenanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS.10.1007/978-3-531-92038-2_36Search in Google Scholar

Brüderl, J., & V. Ludwig, 2015: Fixed-effects panel regression. S. 327–357 in H. Best & C. Wolf (Hrsg.), The Sage Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference. Los Angeles u. a.: Sage.10.4135/9781446288146.n15Search in Google Scholar

Buche, A., M. Jungbauer-Gans, A. Niebuhr & C. Peters, 2013: Diversität und Erfolg von Organisationen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42: 483–501.10.1515/zfsoz-2013-0604Search in Google Scholar

Burton, M. & C. Beckman, 2007: Leaving a Legacy: Position Imprints and Successor Turnover in Young Firms. American Sociological Review 72: 239–266.10.1177/000312240707200206Search in Google Scholar

Castilla, E., 2008: Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers. American Journal of Sociology 113: 1479–1526.10.1086/588738Search in Google Scholar

Castilla, E., 2011: Bringing Managers Back in: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality. American Sociologial Review 76: 667–694.10.1177/0003122411420814Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, P. & M. Huffman, 2007: Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage Gap. American Sociological Review 72: 681–704.10.1177/000312240707200502Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, V. W., 1997: Homophily or the queen bee syndrome: Female evaluation of female leadership. Small Group Research 28: 483–499.10.1177/1046496497284001Search in Google Scholar

Correl, S., 2004: Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspirations. American Sociological Review 69: 93–113.10.1177/000312240406900106Search in Google Scholar

Cotter, D., J.M. Hermsen, S. Ovadia & R. Vanneman, 2001: The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces 80: 655–681.10.1353/sof.2001.0091Search in Google Scholar

Derks, B., N., Ellemers, C., Van Laar & K. De Groot, 2011: Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology 50: 519–535.10.1348/014466610X525280Search in Google Scholar

Ely, R., 1994: The Effects of Organizational Demographics and Social Identity on Relationships among Professional Women. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 203–238.10.2307/2393234Search in Google Scholar

England, P., M.S. Herbert, B.S. Kilbourne, L.L. Reid & L. McCreary Megdal, 1994: The Gendered Valuation of Occupations and Skills: Earnings in 1980 Census Occupations. Social Forces 73: 65–99.10.2307/2579918Search in Google Scholar

Gorman, E., 2005: Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms. American Sociological Review 70: 702–728.10.1177/000312240507000408Search in Google Scholar

Gorman, E. & J. Kmec, 2009: Hierarchical Rank and Women’s Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms. American Journal of Sociology 114: 1428–1474.10.1086/595950Search in Google Scholar

Hausmann, A.-C., C. Kleinert & K. Leuze, 2015: Entwertung von Frauenberufen oder Entwertung von Frauen im Beruf? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie & Sozialpsychologie 67: 217–242.10.1007/s11577-015-0304-ySearch in Google Scholar

Hjerm, M., 2007: Do Numbers Really Count? Group Threat Theory Revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33: 1253–1275.10.1080/13691830701614056Search in Google Scholar

Hultin, M. & R. Szulkin, 1999: Wages and Unequal Access to Organizational Power: An Empirical Test of Gender Discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 453–472.10.2307/2666958Search in Google Scholar

Hultin, M. & R. Szulkin, 2003: Mechanisms of Inequality. Unequal Access to Organizational Power and the Gender Wage Gap. European Sociological Review 19: 143–159.10.1093/esr/19.2.143Search in Google Scholar

Ibarra, H., 1992: Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 422–447.10.2307/2393451Search in Google Scholar

Kalmijn, M. & T. van der Lippe, 1997: Type of schooling and sex differences in earnings in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review 13: 1–15.10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018198Search in Google Scholar

Kanter, R., 1977: Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women. The American Journal of Sociology 82: 965–990.10.1086/226425Search in Google Scholar

Kmec, J., 2003: Minority Job Concentration and Wages. Social Problems 50: 38–59.10.1525/sp.2003.50.1.38Search in Google Scholar

Konrad, A.M., Winter, S. & B.A. Gutek, 1992: Diversity in work group sex composition: implications for majority and minority workers. Research in the Sociology Organizations 10: 115–140.Search in Google Scholar

Kossinets, G. & D. Watts, 2009: Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network. American Journal of Sociology 115: 405–450.10.1086/599247Search in Google Scholar

Lazarsfeld, P.F. & R.K. Merton, 1954: Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. S. 18–66 in: M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. Page (Hrsg.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society. New York: Van Nostrand.Search in Google Scholar

Leitner, A. & A. Dibiasi, 2015: Frauenberufe – Männerberufe: Ursachen und Wirkungen der beruflichen Segregation in Österreich und Wien. Frauen. Wissen. Wien 06/2015: 41–104.Search in Google Scholar

Leuze, K. & S. Strauß, 2009: Lohnungleichheiten zwischen Akademikerinnen und Akademikern: Der Einfluss von fachlicher Spezialisierung, frauendominierten Fächern und beruflicher Segregation. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 38: 262–281.10.1515/zfsoz-2009-0401Search in Google Scholar

Marsden, P., 1988: Homogeneity in Confiding Relations. Social Networks 10: 57–76.10.1016/0378-8733(88)90010-XSearch in Google Scholar

Maume, D., 2011: Meet the new boss … same as the old boss? Female supervisors and subordinate career prospects. Social Science Research 40: 287–298.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.05.001Search in Google Scholar

Maume, D. J. & L. Ruppanner, 2015: State liberalism, female supervisors, and the gender wage gap. Social Science Research 50: 126–138.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.11.005Search in Google Scholar

McGrath, J.E., J.L. Berdahl & H. Arrow, 1995: Traits, Expectations, Culture, and Clout: The Dynamics of Diversity in Work Groups. S. 17–45 in: S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman (Hrsg.), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace. Washington: American Psychological Association.10.1037/10189-001Search in Google Scholar

McPherson, J.M. & L. Smith-Lovin, 1987: Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups. American Sociological Review 52: 370–379.10.2307/2095356Search in Google Scholar

McPherson, J.M., L. Smith-Lovin, & J. Cook, 2001: Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415Search in Google Scholar

Mincer, J., 1974: Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Search in Google Scholar

Northcraft, G.B., J.T. Polzer, M.A. Neale & R.M. Kramer, 1995: Diversity, Social Identity, and Performance: Emergent Social Dynamics in Cross-Functional Teams. S. 69–96 in: S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman (Hrsg.), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace. Washington: American Psychological Association.10.1037/10189-003Search in Google Scholar

Ochsenfeld, F., 2012: Gläserne Decke oder goldener Käfig: Scheitert der Aufstieg von Frauen in erste Managementpositionen an betrieblicher Diskriminierung oder an familiären Pflichten? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 64: 507–534.10.1007/s11577-012-0178-1Search in Google Scholar

Ochsenfeld, F., 2014: Why Do Women’s Fields of Study Pay Less? A Test of Devaluation, Human Capital, and Gender Role Theory. European Sociological Review 30: 536–548.10.1093/esr/jcu060Search in Google Scholar

Ostroff, C. & L. Atwater, 2003: Does Whom You Work With Matter? Effects of Referent Group Gender and Age Composition on Managers’ Compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 725–740.10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.725Search in Google Scholar

Pfeffer, J. & A. Davis-Blake, 1987: The Effect of the Proportion of Women on Salaries: The Case of College Administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly 32: 1–24.10.2307/2392740Search in Google Scholar

Reimer, M., C. Müller & M. Drescher, 2015: Feldbericht: Wiederholungsbefragung des Absolventenjahrgangs 2005/2006 – Fünf Jahre nach dem Studium. Available from <http://www.bap.ihf.bayern.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BAP_Dateien/Absolventenjahrgaenge/2005-2006/B_2/BAP_0506.2_BAP_Feldbericht.pdf> [accessed 23 February 2016].Search in Google Scholar

Reskin, B., D. McBrier & J. Kmec, 1999: The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace Sex and Race Composition. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 335–361.10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.335Search in Google Scholar

Rivera, L., 2012: Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms. American Sociological Review 77: 999–1022.10.1177/0003122412463213Search in Google Scholar

Roth, L., 2004: The Social Psychology of Tokenism: Status and Homophily Processes on Wall Street. Sociological Perspectives 47: 189–214.10.1525/sop.2004.47.2.189Search in Google Scholar

Ruef, M., 2002: A structural event approach to the analysis of group composition. Social Networks 24: 135–160.10.1016/S0378-8733(01)00054-5Search in Google Scholar

Ruef, M., H. Aldrich & N. Carter, 2003: The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation among U.S. Entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review 68: 195–222.10.2307/1519766Search in Google Scholar

Ruijter, J. M. de & M. L. Huffman, 2003: Gender composition effects in the Netherlands: a multilevel analysis of occupational wage inequality. Social Science Research 32: 312–334.10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00061-3Search in Google Scholar

Schlueter, E. & P. Scheepers, 2010: The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group threat- and intergroup contact theory. Social Science Research 39: 285–295.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.07.006Search in Google Scholar

Skaggs, S., K. Stainback & P. Duncan, 2012: Shaking things up or business as usual? The influence of female corporate executives and board of directors on women’s managerial representation. Social Science Research 41: 936–948.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.01.006Search in Google Scholar

Skvoretz, J., 1983: Salience, Heterogeneity and Consolidation of Parameters: Civilizing Blau’s Primitive Theory. American Sociological Review 48: 360–375.10.2307/2095228Search in Google Scholar

Sørensen, J., 2000: The Longitudinal Effects of Group Tenure Composition on Turnover. American Sociological Review 65: 298–310.10.2307/2657442Search in Google Scholar

Srivastava, S. B. & E. L. Sherman, 2015: Agents of change or cogs in the machine? Reexamining the influence of female managers on the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology 120: 1778–1808.10.1086/681960Search in Google Scholar

Stainback, K. & S. Kwon, 2012: Female leaders, organizational power, and sex segregation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639: 217–235.10.1177/0002716211421868Search in Google Scholar

Tsui, A.S. & C.A. O’Reilly, 1989: Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads. Academy of Management Journal 32: 402–423.10.5465/256368Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, D., 1988: Gender inequalities in groups: A situational approach. S. 55–68 in: M. Webster & M. Foschi (Hrsg.): Status generalization: New theory and research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, C., 1992: The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the „Female“ Professions. Social Problems 39: 253–267.10.2307/3096961Search in Google Scholar

Williams, C., 1995: Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work (No. 1). Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520915220Search in Google Scholar

Yoder, J., 1991: Rethinking Tokenism: Looking beyond Numbers. Gender and Society 5: 178–192.10.1177/089124391005002003Search in Google Scholar

Zimmer, L., 1988: Tokenism and Women in the Workplace: The Limits of Gender-Neutral Theory. Social Problems 35: 64–77.10.2307/800667Search in Google Scholar


Die Forschungsdaten sind im Datenarchiv der GESIS unter der folgenden Signatur eingestellt: Klug, Christina (2018): Daten: Same-Sex Employees and Supervisors: the Effect of Homophily and Group Composition on Wage Differences. Version: 1. GESIS Datenarchiv. Datensatz.

https://doi.org/10.7802/1706


Published Online: 2018-10-18
Published in Print: 2018-10-05

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston