Employees’ perceptions of co-workers’ internal promotion penalties: the role of gender, parenthood and part-time

Figures & data

Figure 1. Sample vignette.

Table 1. Vignette dimensions and levels.

#	Dimensions	Levels
1	Age	25/30/35/40/45/50 years
2	Gender	Male/Female
3	Gross earnings/months	Nine values ranging from −40% to +40% of respondents wage (previously asked within the survey)
4	Working hours/week	Full-time, i.e. 40 h per week/ Part-time, i.e. 20 h per week
5	Qualification	Under-qualified/ qualified/ overqualified
6	Tenure	Entered the firm and started in the position just recently/Entered the firm a long time ago but started in the position just recently/Entered the firm and started in the position a long time ago
7	Job performance	Below average/average/above average/no information
8	Children	Four values ranging from no children to three children

Table 2. Descriptive overview of the key variables.

	mean	SD	min	max
Vignette level (co-workers):
Evaluated promotion likelihood (logged)	0.81	0.64	0	1.95
Female (ref. male)	0.51	0.50	0	1
Children (ref. no children)	0.74	0.44	0	1
Part-time (ref. full-time)	0.49	0.50	0	1
Respondent level (employees):
Female (ref. male)	0.45	0.50	0	1
Children in household (ref. no children)	0.43	0.50	0	1
Part-time (ref. full-time)	0.22	0.42	0	1
Holding a supervisory position (ref. no supervisor)	0.28	0.45	0	1
N (evaluations); N (individuals)	5,212; 3,761

Data: ‘Fair: Arbeiten in Deutschland’ (Strauß et al. 2022), own calculations.

Figure 2. Perceived promotion penalties: impact of a fictitious co-worker’s gender, parenthood status and working hours on evaluated promotion chances, regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.

Note: Visualization based on model 1 from Supplementary Table A12: N (evaluations) = 5512, N (individuals) = 3761. Controls: Vignette level = Age, gross earnings, qualification, tenure, job performance, evaluated fairness of vignette wage, order of vignette appearance; Respondent level = Gender, children in household, part-time, holding a supervisory position. +P<0.1 *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. Data: ‘Fair: Arbeiten in Deutschland’ (Strauß et al. 2022), own calculations.

Figure 3. Gender-specific promotion penalties: AME with 95% confidence intervals of interactions between.

Note: Visualization based on model 2 from Supplementary Table A12: N (evaluations) = 5512, N (individuals) = 3,761. +P<0.1 *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. Data: ‘Fair: Arbeiten in Deutschland’ (Strauß et al. 2022), own calculations.

Figure 4. Respondent-specific promotion penalties: AME with 95% confidence intervals of interactions between.

Note: Visualization based on model 2 from Supplementary Table A12: N (evaluations) = 5512, N (individuals) = 3,761. +P<0.1 *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. Data: ‘Fair: Arbeiten in Deutschland’ (Strauß et al. 2022), own calculations.

Strauß, S., Hinz, T., Nick, Z., Brüggemann, O. and Lang, J. (2022) Fair: Arbeiten in Deutschland (Konstanz). Datenfile Version 1.0.0. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7802/2486 .

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data and documentation of ‘Fair: Arbeiten in Deutschland’ can be found at https://doi.org/10.7802/2486

 Google Scholar

.