This study summarizes undergraduate business students’ reports of respectful and disrespectful instructor behaviors. Consistent with the theory of interactional justice, respectful behavior was exemplified by recognition of students’ perspectives and by the treatment of students, including showing concern and sensitivity to students’ situations. Disrespectful instructor behavior was noted in terms of poor treatment of students and unwillingness to provide class-related help. Male students commented on being recognized, on instructor responsiveness to their concerns, and on classroom integrity issues more often than their female counterparts. Female students were more sensitive to treatment issues and affirmative instructor behaviors. Implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998). The effect of gender and organizational level on how survivors appraise and cope with organizational downsizing. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 125-142.
2.
Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649-656.
3.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
4.
Beugre, C. D. (1997). Analyzing the effects of perceived fairness on organizational commitment and workplace aggression. Doctoral dissertation, Rennsselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
5.
Bies, R., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
6.
Buttner, E. H. (2002). High-performance classrooms for women? Applying a relational frame to management/OB courses. Journal of Management Education, 26, 274-290.
7.
Cashin, W. (1996, September). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited (IDEA Paper #32). Manhattan: Kansas State University, Division of Continuing Education.
8.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
Choy, S. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from ten years of longitudinal research on students (Report #309375). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
10.
Feldman, K. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 30, 583-645.
11.
Fisher, H. (1999). The first sex. The natural talents of women and how they are changing the world. New York: Random House.
12.
Folger, R., & Bies, R. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Rights & Responsibilities Journal, 2(2), 79-90.
13.
French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
14.
Gallos, J. (1993). Women’s experiences and ways of knowing: Implications for teaching and learning in the organizational behavior classroom. Journal of Management Education, 17, 7-26.
15.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Helgeson, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.
17.
Kim, C., Damewood, E., & Hodge, N. (2000). Professor attitude: Its effect on teaching evaluations. Journal of Management Education, 24, 458-473.
18.
Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Lomo-David, E., & Hulbert, J. E. (1992). Instructor classroom behaviors and student academic success. Business Education Forum, 47, 12-15.
20.
Marsh, H. (1984). Students’ evaluation of teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 707-754.
21.
McKone, K. E. (1999). Analysis of student feedback improves instructor effectiveness. Journal of Management Education, 23, 396-415.
22.
Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon.
23.
Morris, R. (1993). Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages and limitations. Journal of Management, 20, 903-931.
24.
Payne S. L., & Holmes, B. A. (1998). Communication challenges for management faculty involving younger “Generation X” students in their classes. Journal of Management Education, 22, 344-367.
25.
Rosener, J. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Roulis, E., Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussing across gender differences. In S. Brookfield & S. Preskill (Eds.), Discussion as a way of teaching (pp. 151-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
Seidel, J. (1998). The Ethnograph, v5.0. A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari/Sage.
28.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Sweeney, P., & McFarlin, D. (1997). Process and outcomes: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98.
30.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.
31.
Tata, J., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (1996). Emphasis on distributive and interactional justice: Differential perceptions of men and women. Psychological Reports, 79, 1327-1330.
32.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
33.
United States Census Bureau. (2001). 2001 Statistical abstract of the U. S.. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34.
Wethington, E., McLeod, J. D., & Kessler, R. C. (1987). The importance of life events for explaining sex differences in psychological distress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 144-156). New York: Free Press.
35.
Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and proceduraljustice on performance. Journal of Psychology, 133, 183-193.
36.
Zalesny, M., & Ford, J. (1990). Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 47, 205-246.
