A Commentary on Miron et al. (2024): Why Managers May Not Actually Stop Caring About Gender Inequality

Beyond Standards of Injustice: The Importance of Expanding the Cue Set

Miron et al. focus on standards of injustice as a singular cue that managers rely on to inform perceptions of gender inequality and argue that those in power have higher standards of injustice, such that the “amount of evidence needed to conclude that workplace gender wage inequality is unfair to female employees” is increased (p. 2). Further, Miron et al. equate the tendency to endorse a higher threshold to a lack of care about justice. We argue that focusing on a single cue and this particular cue is problematic for two key reasons.

First, standards of injustice are unlikely to be the only cue that inform people’s subjective judgements and/or behavioral reactions to gender inequality, and its degree of relevance is likely to vary. Standards of injustice are broadly operationalized as the percentage of (a) occupations that have a wage discrepancy, (b) women who are economically disadvantaged by a wage discrepancy, and (c) men who are earning salaries that are more than women (across a lifetime). However, simply because a wage discrepancy exists does not mean it is unfair (e.g., Brockner, 2011). For example, differences in occupational demands or work arrangements may create disparities. Fair processes can also result in unfavorable outcomes (and managers typically have access to cues about the fairness of the process). When unfair discrepancies exist, focusing on the degree of discrepancy may not capture people’s perceptions (e.g., those who believe that all people should be treated fairly may perceive even small discrepancies as highly unfair; Bies, 2001). Moreover, managers are unlikely to have complete control over broad wage discrepancies and gender inequality goes far beyond wage discrepancies. This raises questions about whether Miron et al.’s approach suffers from construct deficiency and whether (and to what degree) managers are likely to perceive this cue as relevant and use it to inform their own perceptions.

Second, equating standards of injustice to ‘justice’ falls into the trap of reification. Reification arises when an operationalization is treated “as though it represents the actual phenomenon” and captures a “perfect representation” of the construct (Rupp et al., 2017, p. 940). This threatens validity by failing to specify the assumptions underlying an operationalization. Beyond the embedded assumptions noted above, Miron et al.’s interpretations overlook that scholarly conceptualizations may not reflect people’s lived experiences (Rupp et al., 2017). Also, within the literature, justice and injustice have been argued to be distinct constructs with disparate processes (Goldman & Cropanzano, 2015). As such, equating standards of injustice with justice may create conceptual ambiguity and prevent a clear sense of how inequality can be addressed and equality can be fostered. Taken together, we are concerned about the validity of Miron et al.’s interpretations, especially since evidence is not provided that abstract statements about wage discrepancies sufficiently capture overall perceptions of gender inequality, managers stop caring about justice, and/or broad assessments related to standards of injustice across occupations are influential for managers’ perceptions and behaviors in their own organizations.

Whereas Miron et al. focus on a singular cue that reflects an absolute judgement, the MPA is grounded on the notion that perceptions are subjective and may incorporate a diverse set of cues. Indeed, voluminous research has shown that justice perceptions can encapsulate a wide range of information, including diverse sets of justice standards (e.g., German et al., 2016), and multiple cues can be selected, evaluated, and weighted (e.g., Bashshur et al., 2023). Applying the MPA lens to Miron et al.’s arguments draws attention to the importance of more fully examining the extent to which people use standards of injustice to inform their justice perceptions (e.g., select this as a relevant cue), how they evaluate this cue (e.g., whether people do indeed focus on the quantity rather than credibility of the evidence; see Kunda, 1990), and how this cue may be weighted against other cues to inform perceptions, especially since managers typically have access to a broad and rich set of contextualized cues that non-managers may not.

Building on this foundation, women (vs. men) may have “lower thresholds” for deeming inequality as unfair because they are more likely to have personal experiences with gender inequality and its negative implications (have differential access to, select, evaluate, and weight cues related to gender inequality). Similarly, managers may have “higher thresholds” for deeming gender inequality as a systemic issue for several reasons. For instance, their role and responsibilities provide access to different cues (which may call into question whether disparities are unfair). Further, managers may need to defend their assessment that gender inequality exists and is unfair. This is a key point because managers “can believe what they want but only to the extent that reason, cognitive capacity, and the available information permits” (Bashshur et al., 2023, p. 6). Rather than assuming that managers “stop caring about organizational justice”, they may instead be experiencing a “credibility bias” (see Pornpitakpan, 2004) in which they may need more evidence to feel like they are making a defensible judgement. Moreover, managers may still care about gender inequality but may not have the discretion to act when it is deemed to be a systemic issue. This may prompt hesitancy to label it as a systemic issue or focus managers on addressing gender inequality in other ways that are under their discretion or purview.

Broadening and Exploring the Intersection of Motives to Enhance Ecological Validity

Miron et al. argue that managers are motivated to protect their identity (identity motive), their own resources (self-interest motive), and/or the status quo (system justification motive), which results in managers raising the standard of injustice (and not caring about justice). While we agree that multiple motives can be simultaneously activated, we are concerned about the assumptions underlying this argument and the resulting interpretation of the findings.

First, we challenge the notion that the activation of an identity motive equates to caring less about justice. While managers can be motivated to see their organization as equitable (e.g., Ellemers & van den Bos, 2012) and are less likely to perceive systemic inequality within their own organizations (e.g., To et al., 2022), highly identified managers can be more motivated to address overt acts of discrimination within their organization (e.g., Gloor et al., 2024). Further, identity motives are not limited to diminishing identity threats but may also focus managers on pursuing opportunities (e.g., cultivating and maintaining a positive self-image by addressing inequality and fostering equality; Scott et al., 2014). Taken together, while managers may have difficulty perceiving inequality, the activation of identity motives can encourage them to foster equality and address inequality when it is perceived.

Second, we challenge the argument that primarily women are motivated to advance gender equality and that managers are motivated to maintain inequities. Extensive research has shown that men also care about gender equality and the benefits of gender equality are not limited to women but extend to all genders while also benefiting organizations (e.g., Fine et al., 2020). As Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, eloquently noted, “Gender equality is not a woman’s issue, it is a human issue. It affects us all.” As such, we question the validity of assuming that men are primarily interested in pursuing their own self-interest. Indeed, as a justice issue, inequality may also activate moral motives (Barclay et al., 2017). Moreover, Miron et al.’s arguments imply that managerial and gender identities are mutually exclusive and/or managerial identity overrides gender identity. However, people often navigate tensions and/or share meanings across identities (e.g., Thrasher et al., 2024). For instance, beyond recognizing that the onus should not be on women to advance gender equality, managers may also perceive that their responsibilities as a manager include promoting gender equality.

Third, we challenge the notion that identity motives are the primary and/or dominant motives that are activated. By virtue of being responsible for and/or interacting with their employees, managers can be motivated to fulfill the moral duties associated with their role (moral motive) or want to protect their relationships with employees (relational motive). This simultaneous activation of multiple motives can attune managers to perceive injustice that their employees are experiencing and motivate them to address it (e.g., due to the implications for themselves and their employees). Moreover, this can focus attention on cues that go beyond standards of injustice (a relatively abstract and generalized cue) to those cues that are relevant to the specific situation in their organization. This raises concerns about the ecological validity of the findings (i.e., whether the findings are generalizable to real-world settings and interactions).

Applied to Miron et al.’s theorizing, the MPA highlights the importance of considering that multiple motives may be activated and that people’s role(s) in the situation may influence which motives are activated. Further, the interaction of these motives may influence which cues are available as well as how people select, evaluate, and weight the cues. Identifying which motives are most likely to be activated in a situation and how these motives can influence the cue set (individually and in tandem) is important because the various motives can reflect different psychological needs, drive distinct behaviors, and require disparate interventions. For example, a self-interest motive may be activated by anxiety, focus managers on behaviors that benefit themselves, and be attenuated with prosocial messages that broaden attentional focus to include others (e.g., Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2023). By contrast, system justification motives may arise from psychological needs for coherence (e.g., Jost & van der Toorn, 2012), focus managers on rationalizing inequality by delegitimizing those who experience disadvantage (e.g., Lyubykh et al., 2024), and be mitigated by activating system change motives (e.g., Lyubykh et al., 2022).

Whereas “motives matter” because these can impact the way that managers perceive and respond to inequality, we also argue that “context matters” because this can influence which motives are activated as well as amplify or attenuate their impact. For instance, Arvate et al. (2018) challenged the notion that women in positions of power undermine the advancement of other women (behave as “queen bees”). Instead, their findings show that when women leaders have decision-making discretion, the numbers of women in top and middle level management increase in those organizations. This suggests that it is not a dearth of justice motives for women in power but rather a context that constrains or amplifies the ability to act on them. Managers may also receive signals from their broader environment that can impact their perceptions and/or behavior within the organization (e.g., Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2023). For example, in the wake of the 2024 US election, social media was flooded with misogynistic comments that normalized gender inequality (e.g., “your body, my choice”; Duffy, 2024). This may impact which motives are activated and normalize gender inequality, thereby making some American managers less prone to perceive or react to gender inequalities while attuning others to gender inequalities (e.g., women, employees and managers in multi-national branches of a US company).