Ruth van Veelen

This research applies a social identity lens to show that, during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the classification of occupations and labor market sectors as essential versus nonessential negatively affected the professional identity of those categorized as nonessential workers. We hypothesized that nonessential workers would report lower professional identification (PI) during the pandemic relative to essential workers; explored whether this was partially due to mandatory shifts to working from home and working fewer hours; whether gender differences would emerge in the impact of (non)essential categorization on PI; and if lower PI would negatively relate to work productivity and performance during the pandemic. Empirical evidence based on three datasets sampled among the Dutch working population during two peak waves of COVID‐19 infections and national lockdowns (May/June 2020; Study 1: N = 371; November/December 2020, Study 2: N = 467; Study 3 = 735) confirmed nonessential workers' lower PI relative to essential workers. During the first peak wave (Study 1), nonessential workers' lower PI was partially explained by being home‐bound by reduced work hours. As the pandemic continued (second peak wave; Studies 2 and 3), gender differences emerged, with more negative consequences of being classified as nonessential for women than men. Nonessential workers' lower PI levels were associated with lower work productivity and performance. These findings underscore the importance of understanding social identity processes during the pandemic. We discuss the sociopsychological ramifications of government regulations to control health crises, given how these may inadvertently undermine the professional identity of over half a working population in society.

This study applies a social identity lens to show that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government’s classification of occupations and labor market sectors as essential versus non-essential imposed a professional identity threat to those categorized as non-essential. Specifically, we hypothesized (1) that non-essential workers in the Netherlands would report lower professional identification (PI) during the pandemic relative to essential workers; (2) that non-essential workers’ mandatory shift to working from home and working fewer hours would (partially) explain their lower PI relative to essential workers; (3) that gender differences would emerge in the impact of categorization as (non-)essential worker on PI levels; and (4) that lower PI would negatively relate to work productivity and performance during the pandemic. Empirical evidence based on three cross-sectional datasets sampled among the Dutch working population during two peak waves of COVID-19 infections and national lockdowns (May/June 2020; Study 1: N = 371; November/December 2020, Study 2: N = 467; Study 3 = 735) all confirmed that non-essential workers reported lower PI relative to essential workers. The explanation for this outcome varied at different stages in the pandemic. Study 1 results showed that lower PI among those declared non-essential was partially explained by non-essential workers’ work location (home-bound) and reduced work hours, but only during the 1st peak wave. As the pandemic continued (2nd peak wave; Study 2 and 3), gender differences emerged, with more negative consequences of being classified non-essential for women than men. Non-essential workers’ lower PI levels were also associated with lower work productivity and performance. These findings underscore the importance of understanding social identity processes during the pandemic. We discuss socio-psychological ramifications of government regulations to control health crises, given how these may inadvertently undermine the professional identity of over half a working population in society.

In the study of women in academia, the focus is often particularly on women’s stark underrepresentation in the math-intensive fields of natural sciences, technology, and economics (NTE). In the non-math-intensive of fields life, social and behavioral (LSB) sciences, gender issues are seemingly less at stake because, on average, women are well-represented. However, in the current study, we demonstrate that equal gender representation in LSB disciplines does not guarantee women’s equal opportunity to advance to full professorship—to the contrary. With a cross-sectional survey amongN = 2,109 academics at mid-level careers (i.e., assistant and associate professors) in the Netherlands, we test the hypothesis that in LSB (more than NTE), female academics perceive to hit a “thicker” glass ceiling—that is, they see a sharper contrast between the high representation of women at the lower compared to the top levels. We test whether this predicts female academics’ lower estimated chances to reach full professorship relative to men in LSB (but not NTE). We introduce a novel perceived glass ceiling index (GCI), calculated based on academics’ perceptions of the share of women and men in their direct work environment minus their perceptions of gender ratio among full professors in their field. Results confirm that the perceived glass ceiling is thicker in the non-math-intensive LSB compared to math-intensive NTE fields. Furthermore, only in LSB (but not NTE), women perceived a thicker glass ceiling than men. Moreover, only among female academics, the thicker the perceived glass ceiling, the lower their estimated chances to become full professor 1 day. Combined, a moderated mediation showed that for women only, a thicker perceived glass ceiling in LSB compared to NTE disciplines predicted their lower estimated chances to advance to full professor level. No such mediation occurred for men. We conclude that women’s higher numerical representation in LSB disciplines does not negate a male-dominant normative standard about academic leadership and success. Paradoxically, the perceived odds for female academics to reach the top of their field are lower in fields where they are relatively highly represented, and this may pose unique barriers to women’s perceived opportunities for career success.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the circumstances for parents to combine work and care. We examined work-family guilt among working parents in the Netherlands during the first year of the COVID-19-pandemic (2020). In a cross-sectional survey study with two time points (March and December 2020) in a sample of working parents (N = 574) in the Netherlands, we revealed three key findings. (1) On average, mothers experienced more guilt towards their family for time and energy invested in work instead of family (work-family guilt) than fathers. (2) Parents with essential occupations (regardless of gender) reported significantly stronger experiences of work-family guilt during the first year of the pandemic compared to parents with non-essential occupations. (3) Parents who experienced stronger work-family guilt were more likely to compensate for their guilt by prioritizing family over work and self (by foregoing their leisure time or intending to reduce workhours in order to be with their family). Together these findings show that in terms of combining work and family, the situation is clearly harder on some more than others, namely mothers and essential workers. These findings demonstrate the gendered experience of work-family guilt and the asymmetrical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work-family experiences of parents.

Gender gaps in academia persist with women being less likely to attain leadership, earning lower salaries, and receiving less research funding and resources compared to their male peers. The current research demonstrates yet another, more intangible gender gap in academia called lack of fit, whereby compared to male academics, female academics perceive higher misfit between their professional self‐concept and the agentic ‘superhero’ stereotype of the successful academic. The entire population of Dutch academics (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors from 14 universities) was approached to participate in a nationwide survey. Results from this unique dataset ( N = 3978) demonstrate that academics perceive agency (e.g., self‐confident, self‐focused, competitive) as more descriptive of the stereotypical successful academic than communality (e.g., team‐oriented, good teacher, collegial). Importantly, early career female academics perceived highest lack of fit with this narrowly‐defined agentic occupational stereotype, which was correlated with lower work engagement, professional identification and career efficacy, and higher work exhaustion and exit intentions. Thus, lack of fit seems yet another barrier contributing to pervasive gender gaps in academia. Implications for building more inclusive academic cultures, where not only agentic but also communal academic practice is recognized and rewarded are discussed.

Gender gaps in academia persist with women being less likely to attain leadership, earning lower salaries, and receiving less research funding and resources compared to their male peers. The current research demonstrates yet another, more intangible gender gap in academia called lack of fit, whereby compared to male academics, female academics perceive higher misfit between their professional self-concept and the agentic ‘superhero’ stereotype of the successful academic. The entire population of Dutch academics (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors from 14 universities) was approached to participate in a nationwide survey. Results from this unique dataset (N = 3978) demonstrate that academics perceive agency (e.g., self-confident, self-focused, competitive) as more descriptive of the stereo- typical successful academic than communality (e.g., team- oriented, good teacher, collegial). Importantly, early career female academics perceived highest lack of fit with this narrowly-defined agentic occupational stereotype, which was correlated with lower work engagement, professional identification and career efficacy, and higher work exhaustion and exit intentions. Thus, lack of fit seems yet another barrier contributing to pervasive gender gaps in academia. Implications for building more inclusive academic cultures, where not only agentic but also communal academic practice is recognized and rewarded are discussed.

Despite equal rights, minority groups such as ethnic minorities, LGBTQ + people, and people with mental or physical disabilities face discrimination on a day‐to‐day basis in subtle and hard‐to‐recognize forms. As discrimination slips beneath the surface, it becomes difficult to fight the stigma using collective social identity coping mechanisms. Instead, individual mobility responses such as distancing the self from the stigmatized identity (“self‐group distancing”) become more viable as a way to improve one's individual standing. In this overview of the state of the art, we take a social identity lens to reflect on the current empirical knowledge base on self‐group distancing as a coping mechanism and provide a framework on what self‐group distancing is; when, where and why self‐group distancing likely occurs; and what its consequences are at the individual and the collective level. The contributions in this special issue provide novel insights into how these processes unfold, and serve as a basis to set a future research agenda, for example on what can be done to prevent self‐group distancing (i.e., interventions). Together, the insights highlight that while self‐group distancing may seem effective to (strategically and temporarily) alleviate discomfort or to improve one's own position, on a broader collective level and over time self‐group distancing tends to keep the current unequal social hierarchy in place.

Masculine work contexts form an important source of social identity threat for working women. But what aspect of masculine work contexts is most threatening to women’s gender identity at work: A numerical majority of male colleagues (i.e., numerical male dominance), working in a profession in which women are negatively stereotyped (i.e., normative male dominance), or the combination? The current study aimed to disentangle these two aspects of masculine work contexts by testing its combined impact on the experience of gender identity threat among women and men who work in the STEM sector (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). A field study was conducted among women (N = 177) and men (N = 630) graduates holding an academic degree in a STEM educational program. Respondents either worked in- or outside the STEM sector (i.e., stronger vs. weaker gender stereotype) and estimated the ratio of men to women in their direct work environment. Results from a Structural Equation Model demonstrated that women in STEM face double trouble: The combination of working almost solely with male colleagues (being outnumbered) and working in the technical sector (where women are negatively stereotyped) predicted the highest levels of experienced gender identity threat, particularly among women who highly identified with their gender group. Gender identity threat, in turn, negatively predicted women’s work engagement and career confidence. Men did not face double trouble: Their experience of gender identity threat was not related to working in a masculine STEM sector. Importantly, considering that the women in this sample already hold a degree in STEM, and have proven their competence in STEM and resilience to gender stereotypes, this research reveals how in naturalistic work settings, prevailing social identity threats continue to affect women’s professional careers.

Prior literature paints an incoherent picture on the relationship between team diversity and performance. The current article investigates circumstances under which demographic diversity (gender and nationality) facilitates performance. Based on the categorization–elaboration model, we build a theoretical framework to demonstrate the crucial role of team learning and efficacy as mediators, and team identification as a moderator to understand how and when demographic diversity facilitates team performance. In a cross-sectional study among 72 project teams, data were collected from multiple sources (self-reports, database, and performance assessments) to obtain objective and subjective indices of team diversity and performance. Results from a multigroup structural equation model showed that team diversity facilitated performance for teams with a strong, but not a weak, collective team identity. Second, team diversity facilitated performance through increased team learning and team efficacy only for teams with a strong team identity. Finally, multisource data revealed a different pattern of results for objective and subjective measures. The objective diversity index seemed a more powerful predictor of performance compared with the subjective index, particularly for strongly identifying teams. These findings provide valuable insight for increasingly diversifying organizations, on the circumstances under which team diversity’s potential flourishes. Moreover, it underlines the importance of data triangulation as objective and subjective measures of diversity are conceptually different and show incoherent empirical findings in the diversity–performance link across extant literature.

Purpose: School leadership is fundamental in efforts to successfully implement school reform and improve student and teacher learning. Although there is an abundant amount of research on school leaders’ formal training, assessment, and practice, little is known about their informal professional learning. In other words, how do school leaders learn at the workplace? To answer this question, we took an interactionist approach and argued that school leadership learning is based on the interplay between the school environment and the person. Specifically, we investigated the effect of school context (learning climate, social support), task (task variation), and the personal factor self-efficacy on both individual (reflection and career awareness) and social (asking for feedback and challenging groupthink) learning activities. Method: A questionnaire was administered among 1,150 school leaders in Dutch secondary education. Structural equation modeling was used to test the proposed relationships between our model variables. Findings: Self-efficacy positively predicted all four learning activities. Task variation positively predicted asking for feedback and reflection. Learning climate positively predicted asking for feedback, reflection, and career awareness. Interestingly, the effect of social support was twofold: It positively predicted social learning, but it negatively predicted individual learning. Finally, self-efficacy was an important mediator in the relationship between school context and professional learning. Conclusions: This study demonstrates how personal, task, and school context factors affect school leaders’ professional learning. These insights help develop tools and conditions for leaders to reflect and discuss on their practice, and to set an example for lifelong learning in schools.