Understanding Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model, Biased Perception of Effective Leadership, and Discrimination in Employment Field

Running head: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Question 1
The Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) model delineates a framework for the
understanding of organization behavior from the individual and organizational perspectives. The
framework demonstrates the out of three interrelated organizational process like attraction,
selection and attrition that determine the types of people in an organization (Schneider 1987). It
consequently determines the strategy, structure and culture of an organization. The founders of
organizations often get confused about selecting types of people, providing them compensation,
building relationship structure with them and maintaining homogeneous workplace culture.
Hence, this model is perfect for explaining the maintenance of homogeneity in an organization.
The attraction factor of ASA framework articulates the fact that the preferences of people for a
particular organization is based on some estimate of fit of their personal attributes with the
attributes of the organization. People mostly find the organizations differentially attractive
because of their implicit judgment about the congruence of personal attributes with the
organizational attributes (Butler et al. 2014). While considering the evidence of Apple, this
organization follows teamwork culture at the workplace. So, the most of the people having
collaborative nature are attracted in this organization. In this way, a homogeneous collaborative
culture has been formed in this organization.
As per the selection process of ASA framework, organizations are more likely to select
those people, who they think are most compatible and fir for various types of jobs. Moreover,
organizations often select the candidates, who are posed with similar skills, attitudes, knowledge
and abilities just like their existing employees. Hence, most of the organizations use fit as their
basic criteria for hiring people. The organizations are more likely to create homogeneous
organizational culture, when they hire people having similar attitude, skills and abilities. In this

2HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
way, the organizations end up choosing people, who share common personal attitudes, but they
may not share common competence (Konrad, Yang and Maurer 2016). While considering the
evidence, the managers of Apple are more likely to hire people having high level of
technological skills and collaborative nature. Hence, the organization has become able to
maintain its homogeneous organizational culture.
Finally, the attrition process reflects the ideas that the employees will leave their
organization, if they do not fit with its culture. The employees tend to leave their organization,
when they do not fit well in a particular organizational culture. In this way, when the employees
leave the environment, a more concrete homogeneous group of employees stay in the
organization than those who were attracted initially (Jackson, Schuler and Jiang 2014).
Considering these three factors, the employees, who work in a particular organization share some
common personality and attitude over time that helps in maintaining homogeneous
organizational culture.
Word Count: 440
Reference List
Butler, B.S., Bateman, P.J., Gray, P.H. and Diamant, E.I., 2014. An attraction-selection-attrition
theory of online community size and resilience. Mis Quarterly, 38(3), pp.699-728.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. and Jiang, K., 2014. An aspirational framework for strategic human
resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp.1-56.
Konrad, A.M., Yang, Y. and Maurer, C.C., 2016. Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and
equality management systems: An integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource
management approach. Human Resource Management, 55(1), pp.83-107.

3HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Schneider, B., 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Question 2
Women’s progress in leadership role is always hampered because of the biased
perception of effective leadership. As per the vertical segregation in the European Union, 65%
men has hold the positions of manager, whereas, only 35% of women has hold managerial roles
(Ibarra, Ely and Kolb 2013). The tension women face regarding their gender role, where are
expected to be communal and where they are expected to be agentic in their leadership role. It
ultimately leads to lowered perception about their effectiveness of leadership roles. The
congruity theory has an important role in explaining the reasons for which women are
underrepresented in leadership role (Eagly and Karau 2002). One of the two prime reasons of
injustice preventing women from getting leadership role is perception of women, when they are
placed in leadership role. Women leaders are usually perceived in less optimistic manner in
comparison with male leaders.
As per descriptive bias, female leader are stereotyped as having less leadership skills and
potential than the male leaders. The women are often perceived to have low status position than
the men because of their socially accepted role. The accepted gender stereotypes let a grater
prophecy of gender discrimination between men and women in social behaviour. Most of
common reason for preferring the male leaders occurs from disliking the female leaders (Elsesser
and Lever 2011). It is the perception of people that female leaders are usually too moody,
emotional, gossipy, catty, bitchy, dramatic, petty, dramatic, backstabbing and jealous. Moreover,
the female leaders are often perceived to tremendous polarized perception based on inaptness
between traits related to the women and positive traits of a leadership role. As per this theory,

4HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
inconsistent gender stereotypes and unfeminine perception lead to negative judgement of women
leadership regardless of the kind of leadership the women display (Hoyt and Murphy 2016). In
this way, descriptive bias defines the reason for which women are underrepresented in leadership
role.
One of the other ways for which women are underrepresented in leadership role is
prescriptive bias. As per this bias, female leaders are evaluated as less favourably, as leadership
seen as better fit for men than for women. Female leaders often have to choose between the
options of being perceived as proficient leaders or being liked by followers and co-workers. The
female leaders, who follow masculine leadership style, are considered as competent. However,
such leaders are more likely to receive more negative evaluation for their interpersonal skills
than the female leaders, who follow feminine leadership style (Stafsudd 2006). In this way, such
leaders are often perceived to have misfit with the positive leadership traits. On the other hand,
the female leaders, who follow feminine leadership, are evaluated negatively and less favourably
because of violating the traditional masculine leadership style and desire.
Word Count: 459
Reference List
Eagly, A. H., and Karau, S. J., 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
Elsesser, K. M., and Lever, J., 2011. Does gender bias against female leaders persist?
Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64(12), 1555-
1578.

5HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Hoyt, C.L. and Murphy, S.E., 2016. Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), pp.387-399.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R. and Kolb, D., 2013. Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business
Review, 91(9), 60-66.
Stafsudd, A., 2006. People are strange when you're a stranger: Senior executives select similar
successors. European Management Review, 3(3), 177-189.
Question 3
Disabled people are less likely to be hired and retained by the employers than the non-
disabled people. Such people are also less likely to occupy senior positions, as compared with
the non-disabled people. The disabled people are always having less priority than those of non-
disabled people in organizations, despite of equal educational qualification. Educational
qualification is always help at constant, but the physical abilities matter a lot in getting
employment opportunity. On the other hand, the people having mental health problems are the
impairment groups, who are least likely to be in senior position in all the sectors. Several
qualitative studies have been conducted on assessing the employment opportunity of disabled
people.
These qualitative studies have pointed out that the employers always suspect that the
disabled people are always having low productivity. Moreover, it is the perception that disabled
people are lazy, workshy and prefer to live on benefits that actually doing work. Hence, the
employers are highly motivated to avoid hiring disabled people at work. However, this
motivation is not truly justified by the empirical evidences. Several studies conducted on the
disabled employees have proved that these employees feel that they need to work harder for
proving their abilities in their organizations (McLaughlin, Bell and Stringer 2004). Hence, as per