Organisatsioonide kohta teadmiste saamine ja tähendusloome viisil, et sellest nii indiviidile, organisatsioonile kui ühiskonnale mingit tulu tõuseks, on keerukas ja seetõttu oleks kasulik vähemalt kaaluda kõiki võimalusi, mis võiks nendes küsimustes edasi aidata. Siinviidatu võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele juhtimisega puutumuses olevatele aga ka uurijatele-tudengitele, sest autorid demonstreerivad teooriakäsitlusi, mis võiksid huvitavaid mõtteid tekitada olenemata konkreetsest teoorias.


Stereotype threat theory (STT; Spencer, Logel, & Davies, 2016; Steele, 1997), an intriguing lens to understand intergroup differences on socioeconomic outcomes, is at a crucial juncture in its developmental journey. Many researchers consider stereotype threat a “standard predicament of life” (Steele, 2011, p. 5) that offers a new perspective for illuminating workplace issues and concerns (Kray & Shirako, 2012).


Indeed, STT is relevant wherever one is under evaluation, so that the workplace – with its emphasis on formal and informal assessments of employees – is a “breeding ground” for threatening effects emanating from stereotypes (Kray & Shirako, 2012, p. 173).


Because there are a myriad of ways to generate useful insights in the social sciences (Delbridge & Fiss, 2013), elaborating a generalized theory assessment schema in the form of the 3E framework should suitably equip researchers for advancing the conceptual base of organizational research (Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011).

Teooria fookus:

STT centers around a situational predicament in which individuals find themselves to be at the risk of conforming negative stereotypes about their social group (Steele, 1997).

Stereotüüpidest pole pääsu:

Stereotypes are pervasive in society, so that “every employee walking through the door of the organization knows the stereotypes that might be applied to him or her and wonders whether organizational decision makers and co-workers will endorse those stereotypes” (Roberson & Kulik, 2007, p. 25).


Stereotype threat is manifested through the interplay of two distinct factors (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007): target of the threat (who does the stigma reflect upon? self or group) and source of the threat (who is judging? self, in-group others, and out-group others).


Stereotype reactance refers to the tendency to respond to stereotype threat in a manner inconsistent with the stereotype (Hoyt, 2005). […] Stereotype reactance refers to the tendency to respond to stereotype threat in a manner inconsistent with the stereotype (Hoyt, 2005).

Teooriast kokkuvõtvalt:

To summarize, STT explains persistent and pervasive group differences on stereotyped tasks (e.g., men vs. women on negotiation skills). Rather than focusing on the long-standing and well-debated nature versus nurture explanation, STT draws attention to situational factors that contribute to systematic differences between groups even when they are matched on genetic predispositions, academic backgrounds, or personal beliefs (Steele, 1997).


For organizational scholars, theory refers to a set of statements, organized in a characteristic fashion, to cast light on a class of socioeconomic phenomena (Dubin, 1969; Sutton & Staw, 1995). 2 Theorization begins with experiencing a phenomenon in the research literature and/or practical world (Lynham, 2002).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

In conducting the 3E analysis of STT, we find that STT does not meet all requirements, which leads us to identify five broad research avenues for continued theory development.

Swab, R. G., Javadian, G., Gupta, V. K., & Pierce, C. A. (2022). Stereotype Threat Theory in Organizational Research: Constructive Analysis and Future Research Agenda. Group & Organization Management, 47(3), 530–570.