Men, Women and Managers

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2006, 59, 815846
MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE STEREOTYPES FINALLY CHANGING?

EMILY E. DUEHR and JOYCE E. BONO University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
As the number of women in management roles increases and organizations place a greater emphasis on diversity, a subsequent change in perceptions of women as leader-like is expected. To test this notion, we examined gender and management stereotypes of male and female managers and students. Results reveal considerable change in male managers views of women over the past 30 years, as evidenced by greater congruence between their perceptions of women and successful managers and stronger endorsement of agentic and task-oriented leadership characteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changed less, remaining strikingly similar to stereotypes held by male managers 15 years ago. Across samples, there was general agreement in the characteristics of managers but less agreement about the characteristics of women. We also found men somewhat less likely than women to attribute successful manager characteristics to women. Respondents with positive past experiences with female managers tended to rate women higher on management characteristics.
In the United States, the number of women in the managerial and professional ranks has steadily increased. According to Catalyst, a research and advisory organization committed to advancing women in business, women now hold 51% of managerial and professional specialty positions (Welle, 2004). Women also hold 51% of bachelors degrees and 45% of all advanced degrees (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although these numbers are larger today than ever before, the progression of women into executive positions continues to be slow. For example, among the Fortune 500 companies, only 16% of corporate ofcers, 14% of board directors, 5% of top earners, and just over 1% of CEOs are women (Welle, 2004). Much research has focused on explaining the slow managerial advancement of women (e.g., Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005; Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992), ruling out reasons such as lesser skills, education, and time out of the workforce. One plausible explanation that has not been ruled out is that women face subtle barriers in the corporate climb. In a recent survey of 120 CEOs and 705 female executives drawn from the
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Emily E. Duehr, 75 East River Road, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; dueh0005@umn.edu.
COPYRIGHT
C
2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.
815
816
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Fortune 1,000 companies (Wellington, Kropf, & Gerkovich, 2003), 72% of CEOs and 51% of female executives perceived stereotypes about womens roles and abilities to be an important barrier to their advancement. Clearly, gender stereotypes are salient in organizations as a potential barrier to advancement; however, the degree to which stereotypes persist in the 21st century is unclear. Thirty years have passed since issues of gender inequality in management and leadership reached the public eye (e.g., Kanter, 1977), and in that time women have become more common in the boardroom. As the gender balance in management changes, parallel changes in hiring practices, mentor availability, and eventually gender role stereotypes should follow (Kanter, 1977). Over the course of the past several decades, there have also been changes on the management front. Contemporary books and articles on management describe management work in qualities traditionally dened as feminine (Fondas, 1997, p. 257), such as helping and developing others, and building networks of relationships. In the academic literature, a new genre of leadership (i.e., charismatic and transformational leadership; Bass, 1985, 1998) has dominated recent research (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). There is also ongoing debate about whether women now hold a leadership advantage (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Vecchio, 2002, 2003). Given the changes in both womens work roles and models of leadership effectiveness, the aim of our research is to assess current perceptions of men, women, and successful managers. Specically, the purpose of our study is to assess management and gender stereotypes today, comparing them with those that existed in the 1970s and 1980s (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Schein, 1973, 1975).
Gender Stereotypes: Time for Change?
Gender stereotypes are categorical beliefs regarding the traits and behavioral characteristics ascribed to individuals on the basis of their gender. They serve as expectations about the attributes and behaviors of individual group members (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000) and are considered one of the direct antecedents of discrimination at work (Dovidio & Hebl, 2005). Typically, women are stereotyped as more communal and men as more agentic. Communal characteristics are primarily concerned with the welfare of other people, including attributes such as compassionate, kind, sentimental, helpful, and generous. Agentic characteristics describe a more assertive, dominant, and condent tendency, including attributes such as aggressive, ambitious, independent, and self-condent. Agentic characteristics have traditionally been aligned with leadership roles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002).
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
817
Gender stereotypes have been documented for decades. Although some research suggests that stereotypes are not quick to change, even in the wake of changing social inuences (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow, 2001), it is clear that the social environment with respect to women has been changing. The past several decades have included changes in the legal environment (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, afrmative action) and associated changes in the extent to which organizations focus on equal opportunity employment practices, both as a function of legal guidelines and as a movement toward fostering diversity as a business goal (Rynes & Rosen, 1995). Changes in attitudes toward women have also been documented (Twenge, 1997a). These environmental changes suggest two possible reasons why gender stereotypes may be changing, especially for women in management. The rst possibility is that a gradual change in gender stereotypes may be occurring due to changing social roles (e.g., more women at work and in management and executive positions). The second possibility is change due to organizational interventions, such as diversity training aimed at decreasing gender stereotypes and other prejudiced attitudes. Both possibilities are discussed in the next section. According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), agentic and communal characteristics are differentially attributed to men and women because unequal distribution into occupations and families fosters such expectations (Diekman & Eagly, 2000). As the distribution of men and women into social roles shifts, perceptions of the characteristics of men and women (i.e., stereotypes) should also change; however, change cannot be expected to occur quickly (Lueptow et al., 2001). Recently, Diekman and Eagly (2000) found evidence of changing conceptions of women, reporting that stereotypes of women have shifted toward more masculine or agentic characteristics. In a meta-analysis, Twenge (1997b) reported that womens self-reported masculinity scores were rising over time and proposed that this increase resulted from the changing social climate for women. Contrary to Twenge (1997b), Lueptow et al.s (2001) reviewwhich examines gender stereotypes based largely on self-report personality and direct comparisons of men and womensuggested that gender stereotypes have remained stable over time with a possible increase in the perceived femininity of females. Although neither of these streams of research focuses on gender and management, they do suggest that whether or not stereotypes are changing is an unsettled issue. A decidedly different reason to expect changing gender stereotypes is due to the increased focus on diversity in organizations, including specic interventions (e.g., diversity training) designed to foster this goal. It is now estimated that organizations spend $8 billion annually on diversity training, and in a recent survey of Fortune 1,000 companies, 88% reported providing diversity training on gender (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).
818
Diversity training can be aimed at increasing awareness and appreciation of differences between individuals or decreasing stereotypes held by organizational members. When focused on gender, the aim is typically to identify stereotypes and promote inclusion, rather than highlighting differences between men and women (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Research on schema change shows that once schemas are established, they are very resistant to change, even in the face of disconrming evidence (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000). Epitropaki and Martin (2004) stated that unless specic interventions and conscious efforts by management for schema change happen in an organization, organizational members schemas are likely to remain stable (p. 295). We suggest that diversity training is precisely the type of intervention and conscious effort needed to promote changes in gender stereotypes. A recent study by Rudman, Ashmore, and Gary (2001) examined the impact of diversity education on stereotypes and prejudices, and found that training can reduce these biases at multiple levels. Not only did diversity education lead to a decrease in directly reported, explicit stereotypes, but such education also reduced implicit stereotypes, which occur on an automatic, unconscious level (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Implicit stereotypes are thought to be more stable and enduring associations because they have been learned through years of environmental inuences (Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001). If such associations can be unlearned through diversity training, and diversity training is common in todays work organizations, then it is possible that gender stereotypes may be changing as a result of direct interventions. If diversity training is a key factor inuencing stereotype change, we would expect to see greater change among those individuals with more time and experience in the workplace, due to their increased participation in such training.
Research Using the Schein Descriptive Index
A crucial consideration when examining gender stereotypes in work organizations is the extent to which these stereotypes affect perceptions of managers. Research within the Schein paradigm focuses on the relationship between gender and management stereotypes, reecting the extent to which men and women are viewed as leader-like. In 1973, Schein developed the Descriptive Index to assess the extent to which men and women were perceived to have the requisite personal characteristics expected for management positions. Using a broad list of adjectives, Schein found that the characteristics of successful middle managers were much more similar to the characteristics commonly ascribed to men in general and not at all like the characteristics attributed to women in general. Schein (1975) replicated these results with a sample of female managers,
819
demonstrating that it was not only males who held gender stereotypes in the workplace. In a key extension of the Schein paradigm approximately 15 years after the original research, Heilman et al. (1989) examined the extent to which gender stereotypes persisted in organizations. Heilman et al. (1989) replicated Scheins (1973) original work and found stereotypical views about the characteristics of men in general, women in general, and successful managers at a level that closely paralleled Scheins (1973) ndings, suggesting little change in the stereotypes of male managers over time. Heilman also extended Scheins research by comparing successful managers to male and female managers and to successful male and female managers, nding considerably weaker gender stereotypes when more information was provided about the managerial success of women (e.g., female managers or successful female managers). Concurrent research with female managers yielded slightly different results. Brenner et al. (1989) replicated the original Schein studies using both male and female management samples. They found no evidence of changing stereotypes among male managers; however, female managers rated both men and women as similar to successful managers. This disparity between male and female respondents was due largely to differences in their view of women, not in their view of successful managers. Since 1989, researchers have continued to use the Schein paradigm to identify gender stereotypes, but nearly all of this research has used student samples. Although some researchers have argued that college students would be less likely to report gender stereotypes due to a more egalitarian social context (Lueptow et al., 2001), research using the Schein paradigm has repeatedly shown that college students hold strong gender stereotypes, especially the male students (Schein & Mueller, 1992). Similar results have been reported among students in Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and China (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). This pattern of ndings led Schein (2001) to conclude, In the United States many people believed that as women moved into management, managerial sex typing would diminish. And it did, among women. But men have continued to see women in ways that are not complimentary vis-` a-vis succeeding in positions of authority and inuence (p. 684). This discouraging statement on gender and management stereotypes may not apply uniformly to all men. Results derived from student samples may not generalize to employees in work organizations, especially managers, who experience both increased exposure to women leaders and direct interventions such as diversity training. Key replications of the Schein paradigm with managers took place in the late 1980s, at a time when women were fast increasing their presence in organizations
820
(Heilman et al., 1989), but since that time the number of women in leadership positions has continued to grow (Welle, 2004). Therefore, after another 15-year period, the time is ripe to examine whether gender stereotypes held by managers have changed. It is not sufcient to rely solely on student samples to address this question. Therefore, we included both managers and students in our research to provide a more thorough portrait of current gender and management stereotypes. Since the rst Schein (1973) study of gender and management stereotypes, there have been many advances in the literature with respect to the conceptualization and measurement of stereotypes, and adjective checklists, such as the Schein Descriptive Index, have been criticized. Devine and Elliot (1995) distinguished between ratings of stereotypes and ratings of personal beliefs. According to their distinction, the Schein Index focuses on personal beliefs, which may or may not be congruent with either knowledge or endorsement of stereotypes (see Kunda & Spencer, 2003). However, by aggregating the personal beliefs of male and female managers and students, as we do in this research, we can examine the gender and management stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g., male managers). Recent stereotype research has also demonstrated differences between explicit and implicit stereotypes (e.g., Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). Implicit stereotypes are the introspectively unidentied traces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members of a social category (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 15). Additional research has focused on the difference between descriptive (i.e., consensual expectations about what men and women actually do) and prescriptive (i.e., consensual expectations about what men and women should do) stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). We recognize both the complexity of stereotypes and their measurement and the possible role that implicit and prescriptive stereotypes may play in the advancement of women in management. However, as the purpose of our study was to compare views of men, women, and managers over time, it was necessary for us to use an explicit measure, which due to its reliance on adjective descriptors of men, women, and managers, assesses descriptive gender stereotypes. A second concern raised by Devine and Elliot (1995) was the use of outdated adjectives, which may provide a limited description of men, women, and managers. Given the changing leadership paradigms over the past 30 years, we felt it was crucial to add adjectives reecting a broader range of leadership styles. In particular, adjectives describing relationship-oriented and transformational leadership were absent from the original Descriptive Index, whereas task-oriented leadership characteristics were wellrepresented. Task-oriented leadership behaviors emphasize group output;
821
such as establishing objectives and goals, structuring tasks, and evaluating work quality. In contrast, relationship-oriented behaviors emphasize supportive personal relationships, a willingness to develop employees and demonstrations of respect and warmth (Bales, 1954; Bowers & Seashore, 1966; House & Aditya, 1997). Although task and relationship-oriented leadership have a long history in the leadership research, recent research has focused more on transformational leadership behaviors (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers with optimism and commitment to a compelling vision. They link work goals to worker values, challenge established practices, and attend to the individual growth needs of followers (Bass, 1985, 1998). Given that recent meta-analyses have highlighted the positive effects of both relationship1 (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) and transformational (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) leadership behaviors on employee attitudes and motivation, group performance, and leader effectiveness, we added adjectives describing these behaviors to the index. Most past research using the Schein Index examined each of the 92 adjectives individually. In order to make comparisons over time, we deemed it important to use the original adjectives, but we also combined the adjectives to form several scales. In order to assess broad gender stereotypes, agentic and communal scales were formed. In addition, we combined adjectives to form scales for task-oriented leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, and transformational leadership to better link this research to current models of effective leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Judge et al., 2004).
Individual Differences in Beliefs About Men, Women, and Managers
Although the primary purpose of our research is to examine stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g., male managers, female students), very little is known about the characteristics of individuals who predict their beliefs about men, women, and managers. Most existing research using the Schein Descriptive Index has used either student or managerial samples, preventing direct comparison among these groups. Moreover, when comparing the stereotypes of managers and students, it is not clear whether differences in stereotypes between these groups are due to the effects of age, years of work experience, experience with female managers, or holding a managerial role. Therefore, an additional aim of our research is to
1 The Judge et al. (2004) meta-analysis uses the label consideration instead of relationship-oriented leadership. These categories refer to comparable and concurrent programs of research. The labels have frequently been used interchangeably in research (e.g., Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Sczesny et al., 2004).
822
tease apart the source of differences between individuals in their beliefs about men, women, and managers by examining personal characteristics (i.e., age, gender, education) and organizational experiences (i.e., having a female supervisor, being satised with a female supervisor).
Summary of Research Questions
Given the continued movement of women into management positions and changes in dominant leadership paradigms over the past several decades, the time is ripe to examine whether anything has changed with respect to management and gender stereotypes. To that end, we address ve specic research questions. (1) Research Question 1. Have management and gender stereotypes held by male and female managers changed relative to 15 and 30 years ago? (2) Research Question 2. Have management and gender stereotypes held by male and female students changed, and how do they compare to the stereotypes of male and female managers? (3) Research Question 3. If gender stereotypes have changed, what is driving that change? Have views of managers changed, have views of men and women changed, or have both changed? (4) Research Question 4. Do the broad gender stereotypic (agentic, communal) and leadership-specic (task-oriented, relationship-oriented, transformational) characteristics attributed to men, women, and managers differ by sample? (5) Research Question 5. Do individual differences in education, age, management experience, and experiences with female supervisors predict beliefs about men, women, and managers?
Method Participants and Procedures
We used four distinct samples in this research: male managers, female managers, male students, and female students. Managers (n = 620) who participated in this research were drawn from a variety of public and private sector organizations and came from a variety of job types (e.g., accounting, human resources, law enforcement, public works, etc.). All managers were enrolled in voluntary leadership development programs. Data were also collected from undergraduate students (n = 688) at a large public university. Students were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses and received credit for their participation. They represented a broad array of
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO TABLE 1 Sample Characteristics for This Study
Sample Male managers N 333 Sample characteristics Age Education # Direct reports Race Caucasian African American/Black Hispanic Asian Age Education # Direct reports Race Caucasian African American/Black Hispanic Asian Age Managerial experience Race Caucasian African American/Black Hispanic Asian Age Managerial experience Race Caucasian African American/Black Hispanic Asian
823
Summary statistics M = 48 years, SD = 8.8 81% BA or higher x = 9, SD = 13 85.2% 3.1% 1.7% 1.7% M = 46 years, SD = 9.2 78% BA or higher x = 9, SD = 10 88.7% 4.0% 0% 1.3% M = 21 years, SD = 3.8 25% had been managers 79.6% 5.0% 1.4% 9.5% M = 20 years, SD = 3.6 15% had been managers 78.6% 2.4% 1.3% 13.3%
Female managers
287
Male students
221
Female students
467
academic majors, including economics, journalism, business, and psychology. Demographic information regarding participants age, race, education, and number of direct reports (for managers) is provided in Table 1. The age of the managers in our samples is comparable to Schein (1973, 1975) and Heilman et al. (1989). Surveys were administered to managers as an optional component of a survey used in leadership development programs. Surveys were distributed during orientation and completed prior to the start of any formal program activity. The research portion of the survey was clearly identied as distinct from the leadership assessment, which was for developmental purposes only and not provided to the managers organization. Therefore,
824
managers were encouraged to provide honest responses throughout the survey as the results would be used for research purposes only. The research portion of the survey was condential and anonymous and was returned in postage-paid envelopes to the authors. Among the managers who completed a leadership development survey, 82% also completed a research survey. Surveys were distributed to student samples in several small group sessions. Student surveys were anonymous. There were seven versions of our survey, each one representing a different target condition. The seven conditions were (a) successful middle managers, (b) women in general, (c) men in general, (d) women managers, (e) men managers, (f) successful women managers, and (g) successful men managers. The rst condition (successful middle managers) is the control condition and Conditions 2 through 7 are gendered conditions that range in level of specicity (e.g., from women in general, to women managers, to successful women managers). Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven conditions. All seven surveys included the same list of descriptive adjectives and instructions but differed with respect to the target group. For example, some respondents were asked to report the extent to which each adjective was reective of women in general, whereas others were asked to report the extent to which each adjective was reective of successful men managers. Therefore, each participant responded to only one target condition. The number of participants responding to each target condition varies by sample and is reported in Table 2.
Measures
Gender stereotypes. A revised version of the Descriptive Index (Schein, 1973), including the original 92 items plus 26 additional new items (described below), was used to measure gender stereotypes and characteristics of successful middle managers. Despite widespread use of the Descriptive Index, there is very little information published regarding its psychometric properties. Based on the suggestion of anonymous reviewers, we collected some post hoc data to address this concern. Among a student sample (n = 30), we found the 2-week testretest reliability to be .90, suggesting relatively stable ratings for a given target condition. We also examined whether ratings would differ if the control condition was labeled successful manager rather than successful middle manager. Among a student sample (n = 97), we found these ratings to be highly correlated (r = .98), indicating similar perceptions of the characteristics of managers (more generally) and middle managers. We added 26 new items to the Descriptive Index to address concerns about outdated adjectives (Devine & Elliot, 1995) and to better represent current styles of leadership. We added 13 new adjectives to describe
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO TABLE 2 Sample Breakdown by Condition of the Descriptive Index
Sample Male managers Condition 1. Successful middle managers 2. Women in general 3. Men in general 4. Women managers 5. Men managers 6. Successful women managers 7. Successful men managers 1. Successful middle managers 2. Women in general 3. Men in general 4. Women managers 5. Men managers 6. Successful women managers 7. Successful men managers 1. Successful middle managers 2. Women in general 3. Men in general 4. Women managers 5. Men managers 6. Successful women managers 7. Successful men managers 1. Successful middle managers 2. Women in general 3. Men in general 4. Women managers 5. Men managers 6. Successful women managers 7. Successful men managers
825
N 57 50 40 39 51 38 58 36 35 36 35 48 50 47 32 28 36 31 33 36 25 65 72 70 77 58 60 65
Female managers
Male students
Female students
transformational leaders. The new items were based on the most widely used measure of transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Each author separately reviewed the MLQ and developed a list of adjectives that were reective of transformational leadership, resulting in 13 items to be added to the inventory (see Appendix A). Additional items were added to reect management characteristics that are relationship oriented, as such adjectives were largely unrepresented among the original 92 items of the Descriptive Index. Participants responded to all 118 items using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 not characteristic to 5 characteristic. Survey instructions were modeled after Schein (1975) and asked participants to rate each adjective according to what they think the target group is like.
826
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE 3 Intercorrelations Among Gender and Leadership Scales in This Study
Scale 1. Agentic 2. Communal 3. Task 4. Relationship 5. Transformational
1 .78 .33 .69 .03 .16
2 .73 .06 .68 .60
.80 .39 .50
.87 .89
.94
Note. Combined sample = 1,363. Scale alphas are presented on the diagonal. p < .05. p < .01.
We also used the original and new Descriptive Index adjectives to form scales. Scales were chosen a priori and a judgmental sort was undertaken by the authors. This method was preferable to an empirical sort (i.e., factor analysis) because specic scales were selected based on their theoretical relevance to gender and management stereotypes (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Karau, 2002). The selection of adjectives to form each scale was guided by previous research. More specically, with respect to broad gender stereotypes, we formed agentic and communal scales using adjectives or direct synonyms described by Eagly and Karau (2002). Furthermore, an effort was made to include agentic and communal adjectives with both positive and negative connotations, as in Diekman and Eagly (2000). This process identied 14 adjectives from Scheins original 92 to reect agentic and communal characteristics. With respect to leadership-specic scales, we formed task and relationship-oriented scales based on recent research by Sczesny (2003) and Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, and Schyns (2004), who classied attributes into highly reliable task and person-oriented scales. Whenever possible, we matched exact adjectives or synonyms from the Descriptive Index to form these scales; however, several new adjectives were included in the relationship-oriented leadership scale as these items were underrepresented among the original items of the Descriptive Index. We used the 13 new transformational leadership items to form a transformational leadership scale. All gender and leadership scales and associated items are listed in Appendix A. Scale alphas and intercorrelations are presented in Table 3. The relatively high intercorrelations reported between some scales were not surprising. Notably, the correlation between the agentic and task-oriented scales (r = .69) is in line with the stereotypic notion of task-oriented leadership as more masculine, and the correlation between the communal and relationship-oriented scales (r = .68) reects the more feminine associations with this style of leadership (Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). A high correlation between relationship-oriented and
827
transformational leadership was also anticipated, although the association between our transformational and relationship-oriented scales (r = .89) is somewhat higher than previous meta-analytic estimates of this relationship (Miliffe, Piccolo, & Judge, 2005). Given the strong, positive correlations between transformational and relationship-oriented leadership behaviors, Judge et al. (2004) called for research aimed at assessing the extent to which they represent distinct types of leadership behavior, but to date little empirical work has fully addressed this issue (see Seltzer & Bass, 1990 for an exception). Therefore, consistent with existing leadership literature, we treat relationship-oriented and transformational leadership behaviors as distinct constructs. Individual differences. To address our goal of understanding better the individual differences in characteristics that predict individuals beliefs about men, women, and managers, we asked a limited number of background items at the end of the survey. Participants were asked to report their age, gender, and level of education on a 5-point scale corresponding to: high school, 1 = associates degree 2 = BA/BS 3 = MA/MS 4 = or PhD 5 =. Managers were also asked to indicate the number of persons who reported directly to them. Students were asked if they had ever been a manager. A small portion (15%) of the students reported having been a manager for an average of 1.9 years. Due to the large discrepancy in experience and age between students and the manager sample, we retained students with management experience in the student sample. In addition to these items, we assessed participants experiences with female supervisors, via two questions: Have you ever had a female supervisor (yes or no)? and If yes, on average how positively would you rate the experience (from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent)? Participants were instructed to provide an average if they have had multiple female supervisors.
Results
In reviewing our results, it is important to keep in mind that we have four samples and seven conditions. Thus, in some cases we will be presenting results of 28 different comparisons for a single research question. Table 2, which describes the four samples and seven conditions in our study, may be a helpful guide in following our results.
Original Items of the Descriptive Index
To determine the degree of correspondence between ratings of successful middle managers and men and women, intraclass correlation coefcients (ICCs) were used. ICCs were preferable to Pearsons correlations for these analyses because ICCs consider both the relative correspondence and the absolute agreement between ratings. As in past research, ICCs
828
were computed from randomized-groups analyses of variance where the groups, or classes, were the original 92 adjectives. The scores within each class were the mean item ratings for each adjective, provided separately for each target condition and sample. ICCs were computed between the control condition (successful middle managers) and each of the gendered conditions, which are treated as independent samples.2 This process was repeated separately for each of the four samples used in this study. The resulting ICCs report the similarity of participants ratings of successful middle managers to each of the six gendered conditions. A high correlation reects similar ratings for a particular set of comparison conditions (e.g., successful middle managers and women managers). The size of the correlation between any two conditions reects the degree to which the comparison group (e.g., women in general or successful male managers) is perceived to have characteristics similar to those of successful middle managers. If the difference in the correlations between two sets of conditions (e.g., successful managers and men in general as compared to successful managers and women in general) exceeds .29, the difference is statistically signicant (p < .05).3 Male and female managers. In Table 4, we present correlations for our samples, along with correlations from past research using management samples for comparison. The row label indicates which of the gendered conditions is being compared to successful middle managers (i.e., Row 1 compares women in general and successful middle managers) and the column label indicates which sample the data is drawn from. Most of the correlations were signicant, indicating more than a chance level of similarity between the six gendered conditions and successful managers; however, the magnitude of these relationships varies widely by condition and sample. The most notable change in results over time is in the comparison between perceptions of successful middle managers and women in general.
2 The current use of ICCs as a measure of correspondence is comparable to a two-way random effects model/absolute agreement in reliability analyses where two raters rated 92 objects. In our use of the ICCs, the raters are analogous to the control and gendered conditions while the objects are adjectives. We thank an anonymous reviewer for providing this illustration to aid in understanding our analyses. 3 In our analyses using the Descriptive Index, the sample size is the number of adjectives (92), not the number of respondents in each condition. Therefore, if the difference in the correlations between two sets of conditions exceeds .29, the difference between these correlations reaches statistical signicance (p < .05). We note that tests of statistical signicance are heavily inuenced by sample size, and correlations should only be compared if variances are equal across samples (Cudeck, 1989). Because we do not have variability data for the Heilman et al. (1989) data and variances in our data vary somewhat by sample and target condition, the .29 difference marking signicance (p < .05) between correlations should be used with some caution.
TABLE 4 Intraclass Correlation Coefcients Across Various Samples and Conditions for the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index
Sample
Groups being compared .24 .63 .61 .81 .74 .97 .61 .98 .54 .59 .49 .96 .30 .52 .70 .54 .58 .86 .93 .11 .70
Schein (1973) male managers Male managers Female managers
Brenner et al. (1989) male managers Schein (1975) female managers .10
Heilman et al. (1989) male managers
Brenner et al. (1989) female managers
Schein et al. (1989) male students
Male students
Schein et al. (1989) female students .43 .40 .69 .68 .93 .51
Female students .35 .45 .91 .78 .98
.06
.01
.62
.72
Women and managers Men and managers Women managers and managers Men managers and managers Successful women managers and managers Successful men managers and managers .98 .97 .95
.95
.95
Note. Data from this study are presented in bold, in data Columns 4, 7, 9, and 11. p < .01. p < .001.
829
830
Examination of the data in the row labeled women and managers reveals a striking change over time in the extent to which male managers see women in general as similar to successful managers. For male managers, there was no signicant correlation between ratings of successful middle managers and women in general in 1973 (ICC = .06, ns) and small negative correlations in 1989 (ICCs = .01 and .24, both ns). In contrast, there was a large, positive, and signicant correlation found in our data (ICC = .63, p < .01). Results in Table 4 also reveal a change in the extent to which female managers perceptions of women in general are similar to their perceptions of successful middle managers (ICC = .30, p < .01 in 1973, ICC = .52, p < .01 in 1989, and ICC = .70, p < .001 in 2003). Although the change for female managers was less dramatic than that of male managers and may have begun earlier, change over the 30-year period was steady, sizable, and signicant. A comparison of the correlations between successful middle managers and women in general with the correlations between successful middle managers and men in general suggests that the male managers who participated in our study see men and women as both possessing many of the traits of successful middle managers (ICC = .63, p < .001 for women in general and ICC = .61, p < .001 for men in general). This nding represents a dramatic change in the perceptions of male managers over the past 30 years. Results for female manager respondents in our study are similar to those of men in that they tend to view both men and women as possessing many of the traits of successful managers (ICC = .70, p < .001 between women and managers and ICC = .49, p < .001 for men and managers). Our next step was to compare ratings of successful middle managers to the men and women manager conditions. We found that both male and female manager respondents described target women managers and target men managers as similar to successful middle managers, with the women manager condition being rated slightly more similar to successful managers than the men manager condition. Both the successful men and women manager target conditions were described as highly similar (ICCs .95, p < .001) to the successful manager condition. Results in Table 4, addressing our rst research question, suggest that gender stereotypes have changed compared to 15 and 30 years ago. Male and female managers now view men and women as similar to successful managers. Change was most dramatic among male managers. Male and female students. Results in Table 4 also include ICCs between successful managers and the six gendered conditions for our student samples along with correlations from Schein et al.s (1989) student samples for comparison. In contrast to the changes we found in our manager samples, our results suggest that less change has occurred in students
831
gender stereotypes since 1989. Specically, there was no correlation between male students views of successful managers and women in general (ICC = .10, ns), similar to ndings in 1989 (ICC = .11, ns). Some change was apparent, however, in male students views of successful managers and men in general. Although male students still see successful managers and men in general as similar (ICC = .40, p < .01), this value is signicantly lower than ndings in 1989 (ICC = .70, ns). Among female students, almost no change was evident. As in 1989, we found a signicant correlation between female students views of successful managers and women in general (ICC = .35, p < .01 and ICC = .43, p < .01, respectively, in our sample and the Schein et al. [1989] sample). When students responded to the more specic target conditions of men and women managers, there were no signicant differences between male and female students. There was a slight trend for female students to view women managers as more similar to successful managers than male students did (ICC = .91, p < .01 and ICC = .69, p < .01 for female and male students, respectively); however, this difference did not reach signicance. With respect to our second research question, there appear to be small changes in the gender stereotypes of male students and no meaningful changes among female students in the past 15 years. Specically, male students still exhibit some of the gender stereotypes found in past research (viewing men and managers as more similar than women and managers); however, the strength of the association between men and managers may have lessened over time.
Assessing Change
Given the evidence in our data that stereotypes may be changing especially for male managersit is important to ask: What has changed? Have managers views of men, women, successful managers, or all three changed in the past 30 years? To answer our third research question, we obtained mean adjective ratings for each of the seven conditions from Heilman et al. (1989). We then correlated ratings from Heilman et al.s data with the data we collected for this study. Examination of the rst column in Table 5 (intraclass correlations between male managers in 1989 and male managers in this sample) reveals strong (ICC = .91, p < .001) agreement between male managers perceptions of successful middle managers in 1989 and 2003. Furthermore, there is little change in male managers views over the 15 years relative to the characteristics of men (ICC = .86 for men in general, .92 for men managers, and .95 for successful men managers). Rather, it appears that changes in male managers stereotypes over time are concentrated
832
TABLE 5 Intraclass Correlation Coefcients Across Samples for Ratings Within Condition on the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index
Heilman et al. (1989) male managers correlated with current sample of: Condition Successful middle managers Women in general Men in general Women managers Men managers Successful women managers Successful men managers Male managers .91 .53 .86 .72 .92 .87 .95 Female managers .92 .43 .89 .60 .88 .85 .96 Male students .89 .88 .88 .72 .87 .91 .93 Female students .92 .74 .86 .72 .87 .90 .94
Note. All values are signicant at p < .01.
on their views of women. Although there is a signicant correlation (ICC = .53, p < .001) between our male managers views of women and the views of male managers in 1989, this correlation is signicantly smaller than the correlations across time for successful managers (ICC = .91) and men in general (ICC = .86). The smallest correlationbetween male managers views in 1989 and male managers views in this studyis in their perceptions of the attributes of women in general (and to a lesser extent their views of women managers), suggesting that the changes we reported in Table 4 are due to changes in the way male managers characterize women. Because Column 1 compares the responses of similar samples of male managers in 1989 and 2004, results can be interpreted as differences between the two time periods in the stereotypes of male managers. Table 5 also presents the correlations between all current samples characterizations of women and those of 1989 male managers (Row 2). Results reveal that male students views of women in general in our sample are strikingly similar to those of male managers in 1989 (ICC = .88, p < .001), indicating that male students in our sample tended to gender stereotype women in a way that makes them incompatible with the role of a successful manager. Considered as a whole, results in Table 5 suggest that views of successful managers (men, women, or gender neutral) are consistent across time and samples; however, views of women are less stable. Next, we compare scores on the gender and leadership scales across samples and conditions, addressing Research Question 4. In Table 6, we
833
TABLE 6 Mean Ratings on Gender and Leadership Scales by Sample and Condition
Heilman et al. (1989) male Male Female Male managers managers managers students 4.10 2.96 4.18 2.58 3.63 2.75 3.76 2.76 3.59 3.52 2.99 3.54 3.95 2.85 3.84 4.09 3.01 4.07 4.23 3.09 4.29 3.70 a 3.39 a 4.18 a 4.29 a 4.32 a 3.06 a 3.62 a 3.38 a,b 3.85 a,b 3.69 a,b 3.74 a 2.73 a 3.73 a 3.17 a 3.35 a 3.51 a,b 3.46 a 3.69 a,b 3.87 a 3.83 a,b 3.87 a 2.77 a 3.86 a,b 3.43 a 3.62 a 3.88 a 3.23 a 4.21 a 4.16 a 4.12 a,b 3.98 a 3.15 a,b 4.32 a 4.15 a 4.29 a 3.64 a 3.29 a 4.16 a 4.12 a,b 4.22 a,b 3.14 a 3.71 a 3.64 a 4.04 a 3.94 a 3.74 a 2.70 a 3.62 a 2.91 a 3.17 a 3.74 a 3.22 a 4.04 c 3.92 a 4.05 a 3.90 a 2.55 a 3.72 a 3.03 b 3.29 b 3.91 a 3.32 a 4.35 a 4.26 a 4.38 a 3.91 a 2.85 c 4.17 a 3.81 b 3.98 a,b 3.60 a 3.28 a 3.95 a 3.91 b 4.02 a,b 2.66 b 3.71 a 2.89 c 3.55 b 3.45 b 3.76 a 2.68 a 3.68 a 3.09 a 3.21 a 3.28 b 3.40 a 3.42 a 3.72 a 3.65 b 3.90 a 2.82 a 3.93 a,b 3.23 a,b 3.46 a,b 3.90 a 3.17 a 4.19 a 3.93 a 4.10 a,b 3.81 a 3.28 a 4.19 a 4.03 a,b 4.14 a,b Female students 3.82 a 3.23 a 4.07 a 3.92 b 4.03 b 2.98 a 3.77 a 3.26 b 3.86 a 3.80 a 3.81 a 2.81 a 3.80 a 3.06 a 3.31 a 3.71 a 3.43 a 3.84 b,c 3.91 a 3.94 a,b 3.90 a 2.63 a 4.00 b 3.19 a,b 3.30 b 4.01 a 3.29 a 4.16 a 3.98 a 4.08 b 4.08 a 2.97 a,b,c 4.30 a 3.71 b 3.86 b
Condition and scales Successful middle managers Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational Women in general Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational Men in general Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational Women managers Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational Men managers Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational Successful women managers Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational Successful men managers Agentic Communal Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Transformational
Note. ANOVAs were conducted on the present data only. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the Bonferroni post hoc comparison.
834
present scale means for each of the ve scales (agentic, communal, taskoriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational) for each of the seven conditions. These data are presented for our four samples as well as for the Heilman et al. (1989) male managers; however, because the relationshiporiented and transformational scales were computed from new items, these scales could not be computed from the Heilman et al. data. In addition, we cannot compute effect sizes (d) or conduct tests of signicance for comparisons involving the Heilman et al. data because we have only mean levels for target condition and scale. It is highly informative, however, to examine the mean scale ratings across samples for changing trends. In particular, change is evident in the scale ratings for the control condition of successful middle managers. Relative to 1989 male managers, it appears that current managers view successful managers as less agentic and more communal. This movement toward greater balance in the stereotypically male (agentic) and female (communal) characteristics of successful middle managers is in line with arguments that modern leadership paradigms are moving toward the feminine (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2003; Fondas, 1997). Relative to the 1989 male managers, current samples also tend to rate women in general higher on agentic characteristics. A series of ANOVAs revealed the gender and leadership scales on which our four samples vary signicantly in their mean ratings (see Table 6). ANOVAs were conducted within each target condition to identify where samples vary in their ratings. When the overall F statistic was signicant for any scale, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons4 were used to identify which samples were signicantly different. Throughout Table 6, means in the same row that do not share subscripts were signicantly different (p < .05). These ndings are consistent with our earlier conclusion that male managers views appear to be changing, whereas male students views have not. For example, when examining scale ratings for the condition of women in general, there are no signicant differences among male and female managers for any of the ve scales. In contrast, male students rated women signicantly lower on agentic characteristics and task-oriented leadership relative to all other samples. As an important comparison point, ANOVAs for the condition of men in general revealed no signicant differences for any scale ratings. These results provide further support for the notion that the variation in stereotypes across samples stems from differing views of women. Results presented in Table 6 also suggest a same-sex bias among female respondents for the leadership scales. For example, when comparing the managerial samples, female managers rated women managers signicantly higher on task-oriented leadership, also rating men
4 Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were used to adjust the family-wise error rate to be at or below the value initially set (p < .05) for all comparisons.
835
managers signicantly lower on relationship-oriented and transformational leadership. Similarly, among student samples, female students rated women managers signicantly higher on task-oriented leadership. This pattern suggests that female respondents attribute more leadership behaviors to women relative to male respondents. When comparing mean scale ratings between target conditions, female respondents often rate women higher on leadership scales as compared to analogous ratings of men (e.g., female managers rated women managers higher than men managers on task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational leadership). In summary, results in Table 6 reveal several instances in which male students ratings diverge from ratings made by other samples, particularly for the condition of women in general. Results also suggest a same-sex bias among female respondents for the leadership scales.
Individual Differences
In our results and in prior research (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Schein et al., 1989), there has been clear evidence that managers and students, and men and women, hold different gender stereotypes, diverging most in the attributes they assign to women. Therefore, the purpose of our nal analysis, addressing Research Question 5, was to examine the role of individual differences in predicting the beliefs that our respondents hold about men, women, and managers. The dependent variable for this analysis is a composite of the top 12 characteristics of successful managers. We combined the data across samples in the successful manager condition to identify the 12 items rated as most descriptive of successful middle managers. These items were combined to form a composite of successful manager characteristics (alpha = .90; see Appendix B). Zero-order correlations are reported in Table 7. Due to the large sample (N = 1,271), many of the correlations reach statistical signicance; however, some correlations are noteworthy, including the relationship between age and education and having a female supervisor (r = .50, p < .01 for age and r = .25, p < .01 for education). Our next step was to regress the successful manager characteristics composite on the demographic and experiential variables. Because our earlier results suggest that differences between samples were most frequent in the female conditions, these conditions were the primary focus of our regression analyses. R2 values reported in Table 8 indicate that individual differences among respondents explain signicant variance in two of the female conditions (21% for women in general, 25% for women managers) but not for the analogous male conditions (3% for men in general, 6% for men managers). Across these two female conditions, results indicate that men are generally less likely than women to view women as having successful
836
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE 7 Intercorrelations Among Individual Differences Characteristics and the Successful Manager Composite
Variable
2 .57 .75 .50 .04 .08
Gender Age .23 Education .19 Manager status .23 Female supervisor .15 Satisfaction with female supervisor .01 Successful manager composite .05
.55 .25 .05 .03
.42 .06 .05
.10 .06
.10
Notes. Correlations greater than .06 are signicant at p < .05 and correlations greater than .08 are signicant at p < .01. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 = female, 2 = male), manager is dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is coded (0 = no, 1 = yes).
TABLE 8 Regression Analyses Predicting Successful Manager Composite

Target condition Successful Successful Men in Men men Women in Women women general managers managers general managers managers Gender Age Education Manager status Female supervisor Satisfaction with female supervisor R2 .02 .02 .14 .10 .10 .00 .03 .04 .02 .19 .10 .12 .03 .06 .07 .17 .11 .10 .02 .00 .02 Beta .19 .14 .02 .10 .25 .28 .21 .25 .24 .07 .02 .09 .36 .25 .11 .13 .06 .20 .06 .12 .04
Notes. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 = female, 2 = male), manager is dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is coded (0 = no, 1 = yes). p .05. p .01.
manager characteristics. We also found that individuals who were satised with female supervisors in the past were signicantly more likely to view women as having successful manager characteristics. Lastly, it is interesting to note that having a female supervisor was signicantly and negatively linked to the successful manager composite only for the women in general condition. Once we controlled for the quality of the relationship with the female supervisor (and all other individual differences variables), those who had a female supervisor were less likely to see women in general as having successful manager characteristics.
837
Discussion
The purpose of our study was to compare gender and management stereotypes early in the 21st century to those evident 30 years ago. Given the inux of women into organizations and management positions as well as an increased focus on diversity, the time was ripe to reevaluate gender stereotypes. Similar to previous work examining gender stereotypes more broadly (e.g., Twenge, 1997b), we found changes in the characteristics attributed to women. Our results complement existing research reporting increases in the perceived masculinity (Twenge, 1997b) and agency (Diekman & Eagly, 2000) of women. Furthermore, our results reveal that these changes have led managers to rate successful managers and women more similarly today than they did 15 and 30 years ago. Considered as a whole, our results suggest that stereotypes about women may be changing. Male managers, in particular, seem to be characterizing women as less passive and submissive and more condent, ambitious, analytical, and assertive. In short, male managersthe individuals who serve as the gatekeepers to most executive suitesare rating women as more leader-like than they did 15 and 30 years ago. The news is not wholly positive, however, as male students today hold gender stereotypes that are surprisingly similar to those of male managers 15 years ago. Furthermore, our regression results indicate that, controlling for age, education, and management status, men generally tended to view women (in general and women managers) as possessing fewer of the characteristics of successful managers. At the same time that male managers are rating the sexes more similarly with respect to management characteristics, female managers gender stereotypes have shifted slightly toward a same-sex bias. Our results suggest that female managers view women as more similar than men to successful managers. This trend was particularly evident when we examined relationship-oriented and transformational leadership characteristics, which may have a slightly more feminine avor than traditional command and control leadership styles of the past. These results are in line with others who have found a same-sex bias in stereotypes among women (e.g., Boyce & Herd, 2003; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). Whereas our results suggest change in male managers views of women over time, we recognize several possible interpretations of our results. The rst explanation is that our ndings reect real change; most notably, male managers have actually changed their views of women. If the change is real, it could be a reection of changing social roles, the result of direct interventions such as diversity training, or both. Social role theory posits that the inux of women into the workforce and management positions reects a redistribution of social roles, which should subsequently affect
838
the characteristics typically attributed to women. However, given the differences we nd in male managers and students stereotypes, social role theory explanations for the changes we found would apply only if social roles have changed more drastically in work organizations than in the educational setting and family life, which represent the majority of college students experiences with women. This is plausible because, despite their increasing presence in work and leadership roles, women still continue to be responsible for the bulk of home and child rearing duties (Cleveland et al., 2000). Therefore, the differences we found between young male students and middle-aged male managers in their views of women may reect their differential experiences with women in social roles. It is also possible that when prompted with the condition of women in general, male students and managers both envisioned their female peers, leading male students to think of young female college students and male managers to think of experienced female managers. Another reason why managers views of women may be changing faster than students views is that they are more likely than students to have been exposed to diversity training focused on gender, which tends to identify stereotypes and promote inclusion (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Recent research (Rudman, et al., 2001) demonstrated that such training can inuence both explicit and implicit stereotypes. In contrast to real stereotype change, a quite different interpretation of our results is that male managers have simply learned that they are expected to view men and women similarly at work. Given the social climate in modern organizations that stresses equal employment opportunities and diversity, it is possible that male managers responses to our survey reect socially desirable responding. This is a possibility that we cannot rule out; however, all managers in our study were responding to an anonymous survey used only for research purposes. Surveys were never administered or viewed by anyone in the managers organization but were mailed directly to the researchers. Therefore, we made every attempt to elicit honest responses from participants. The third plausible explanation of our results is that gender stereotyping has decreased at an explicit level but continues to exist at an implicit level, such that participants are genuinely unaware of their gender-based preferences and prejudices. As our main purpose was to compare gender and management stereotypes today to those held 15 and 30 years ago, it was crucial we use the same methodology used in past research. The downside of this decision is that we were not able to benet from advances in stereotype assessment over the past 30 years. Key advances include ratio approaches to the measurement of stereotypes (e.g., Cota, Reid, & Dion, 1991; Martell & DeSmet, 2001; Martin, 1987) and implicit techniques that measure latent response times, such as the Implicit Association Test
839
(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). We have no reason to suspect that our results would greatly differ with a diagnostic-ratio approach, as this method asks individuals to make explicit judgments on the characteristics of men and women. Indeed, socially desirable response patterns may be even more likely when participants are asked to make direct comparisons (in this approach, all participants rate the probability that males and females will have a given attribute) because participants may mitigate their ratings of group differences in an attempt to avoid appearing prejudiced (McCauley & Stitt, 1978). The distinction between explicit and implicit stereotypes has only recently been examined in applied psychology (e.g., Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). By comparing explicit and implicit stereotypes of male managers, future research may be able to shed light on whether our results reect real change or socially desirable responding. There is also a need for more research on the relationship between both explicit and implicit gender stereotypes and selection and promotion decisions with respect to women in management. Recognizing that our results may have been affected by socially desirable responding, the change in reported stereotypes about women is noteworthy. It has been hypothesized that even a supercial change in stereotypes may affect behavior. Kawakami and Dovidio (2001) argue that explicit stereotypes, such as those we assessed, may predict blatant and deliberative types of bias, whereas implicit measures may be better predictors of subtle or spontaneous expressions of bias. Explicit stereotypes may also predict behavior when socially desirable responses are salient (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997). Thus, male managers who report more egalitarian beliefs may also behave in ways consistent with their espoused beliefs, at least in some situations. A less optimistic scenario is that male managers politically correct attitudes may be masking unidentied, implicit stereotypes that lead to subtle sexism. Recent research has demonstrated that implicit racial stereotypes predict discriminatory behavior, particularly in conjunction with a climate for racial bias (Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). This possibility highlights the importance of future research examining the relationship of explicit and implicit stereotypes to behavioral indicators of sexism, such as male female work relations or use of sexist language (see Swim, Mallet, & Stangor, 2004). In considering our results, it is also important to recognize the multitude of other factors (in addition to implicit and explicit stereotypes) that inuence both discrimination against women and womens career advancement (e.g., career interruptions, mobility, mentor availability, prescriptive stereotypes dictating how women should be, etc.). In applying our results to the organizational context, it is important to recognize some limitations in the type of gender stereotype research reported here. Vecchio (2002) suggests that the use of imaginary people
840
as targets may reect gender stereotyping that occurs primarily in the absence of specic information about an individual. It follows that our data (and past studies using this approach) may tend to over represent gender biases that actually exist in the hiring and promotion of women. Although the purpose of our research was not to directly address discriminatory hiring or promotion practices with respect to women, existing research indicates that hiring discrimination that favors men has persisted (e.g., Jackson, Esses, & Burris, 2001). Our aim was to determine whether or not stereotypes are changing over time. Whether or not the stereotypes elicited in a survey like ours inuence managers promotion and hiring decisions is an empirical question, and Vecchio (2002) presented a comprehensive agenda for gender research, which addresses such issues. A related limitation of our research is that we did not assess prescriptive stereotypes. Our measure focused on how women are viewed but failed to capture current views of how women should be. It is possible that male managers might currently view women as more agentic than in the past, at the same time retaining beliefs that women should not be agentic. If this is the case, then women who have the characteristics of successful managers may be evaluated more negatively in managerial roles because their behavior violates prescriptive stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman et al., 2004). Another limitation of our research is that our data do not allow us to speak to the nature of the change we observed, which could be alpha (actual change in the construct), beta (change due to stretching or shrinking of the measurement scale), or gamma (participants completely redene the construct; Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976). We interpret our results as alpha change, as we have no reason to suspect that beta or gamma changes are present when comparing the Descriptive Index over time. Recalibration of the instrument (beta change) does not seem likely as we nd change only in ratings for certain, specic target conditions and samples (e.g., women in general as rated by male managers). Because there is no change in most conditions, it does not seem likely that the instrument has been broadly recalibrated. The assessment of gamma change is considerably more complicated because there is no a priori factor structure intended in the Descriptive Index. Furthermore, even with access to original data, we would have to compare the factor structure of the index within target conditions, which would not be possible due to relatively small samples within target condition. Because we found more agreement than disagreement in scale-level ratings for each target condition, we posit alpha change as the most likely explanation of our results. A strength of our research was the consideration of gender stereotypes relative to new leadership paradigms (i.e., transformational leadership behaviors). Given our central purposecomparing stereotypes of
841
men, women, and successful managersit is important to reect current views of successful management. A second strength of our study was comparison of raw data from our samples to data collected by Heilman et al. (1989). By comparing male managers in 1989 and 2004, we are able to examine change in overall gender and management stereotypes as well as change in the content of these stereotypes. A third key strength of our study was the examination of individual differences. In past research, it was not possible to examine why student and manager samples held different gender stereotypes. Our individual differences analysis leads to the conclusion that it is not management position, per se, that affects gender stereotypes. Rather, factors such as the respondents age, gender, and experiences with female supervisors inuence stereotypes about women. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that inuence gender stereotypes. We found it interesting that it was not experience with female supervision that affected stereotypes, but satisfaction with female supervision. Rudman et al. (2001) similarly found that affective variables were related to decreased prejudice and implicit stereotypes after diversity training. Our results highlight the importance of management training for women, aimed at increasing their likelihood of success in managerial positions. With respect to the samples used in our research, we note both strengths and limitations. One strength was the use of multiple samples, including managers in a variety of industries and hierarchical levels and students. We collected data from over 1,300 individuals. Nonetheless, when participants are split by gender and sample across seven target conditions, the average sample size within condition is not large (mean = 47). This raises some concerns over the generalizability of the ndings and the possibility that sampling error inuenced our results. We note, however, that the high correlations we found across time in the ratings of successful managers (both male and female) do lend some condence to the validity of our results, as sampling error would lead to instability in results across time and samples. A second limitation of our sample is that most of our participants were Caucasian and all were based in the upper Midwest region of the United States. Thus, it is important to replicate our results with geographically, culturally, and ethnically diverse samples. Overall, this study makes an important contribution to our knowledge of management and gender stereotypes in the 21st century. Our results suggest that gender stereotypes about women are changing in a way that supports their advancement into management and leadership positions. Male managers, who have been and continue to be the gatekeepers into higher levels of management, rate women and successful managers as more similar than they did 15 and 30 years ago. Despite these changes, some individual differences in characteristics (e.g., male, young) are linked
842
to the persistence of gender stereotypes. In addition, our results document the emergence of new stereotypes held by women about women. An important contribution of this research is its provision of up-to-date empirical data regarding explicit management and gender stereotypes, which can be used to substantiate, repudiate, or understand claims of female advantage, gender inequality, and stereotypes in management and leadership. Our focus on explicit stereotypes also highlights the need for additional research examining implicit stereotypes, as well as linking both implicit and explicit stereotypes to discriminatory behavior toward women at work.
REFERENCES
Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden. Bales RF. (1954). In conference. Harvard Business Review, 32, 4450. Bass BM. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass BM. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bowers DG, Seashore SE. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238263. Boyce LA, Herd AM. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49, 365378. Brenner OC, Tomkiewicz J, Schein VE. (1989). The relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662669. Cann A, Siegfried WD. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leader behavior. Sex Roles, 23, 413419. Cleveland JN, Stockdale M, Murphy KR. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cleveland JN, Vescio TK, Barnes-Farrell JL. (2005). Gender discrimination in organizations. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp. 149176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cota AA, Reid A, Dion KL. (1991). Construct validity of a diagnostic ratio measure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 25, 225235. Cudeck R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317327. Devine PG, Elliot AJ. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 11391150. Diekman AB, Eagly AH. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 11711188. Dodge KA, Gilroy FD, Fenzel LM. (1995). Requisite management characteristics revisited: Two decades later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 253 264. Dovidio J, Kawakami K, Johnson C, Johnson B, Howard A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510540. Dovidio JF, Hebl MR. (2005). Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and affective factors. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp. 1135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
843
Eagly AH. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly AH, Carli LL. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807834. Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569591. Eagly AH, Johnson BT. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 223256. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573598. Epitropaki O, Martin R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293310. Fondas N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257282. Golembiewski RT, Billingsley K, Yeager S. (1976). Measuring change persistency in human affairs: Types of changes generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 12, 133157. Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 427. Greenwald AG, McGhee D, Schwartz JLK. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 14641480. Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935942. Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416427. House RJ, Aditya RN. (1997). The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409473. Jackson LM, Esses VM, Burris CT. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 4861. Jayne M, Dipboye R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research ndings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43, 409424. Judge TA, Piccolo RF. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755 768. Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 3651. Kanter RM. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kawakami K, Dovidio JF. (2001). The reliability of implicit stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 212225. Kunda Z, Spencer SJ. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522544. Labianca G, Gray B, Brass DJ. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment. Organization Science, 11, 235257.
844
Lueptow LB, Garovich-Szabo L, Lueptow MB. (2001). Social change and the persistence of sex typing: 19741997. Social Forces, 80, 135. Martell RF, DeSmet AL. (2001). A diagnostic-ratio approach to measuring beliefs about the leadership abilities of male and female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 12231231. Martin CL. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 489499. McCauley C, Stitt DL. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929940. Miliffe K, Piccolo RF, Judge TA. (2005, April). Consideration, initiating structure, and transformational leadership. Poster presentation at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. Rudman LA, Ashmore RD, Gary ML. (2001). Unlearning automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 856868. Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494509. Rynes S, Rosen B. (1995). A eld survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 247270. Schein VE. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95100. Schein VE. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340344. Schein VE. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to womens progress in management. The Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675688. Schein VE, Mueller R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439447. Schein VE, Mueller R, Jacobson C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20, 103110. Schein VE, Mueller R, Lituchy T, Liu J. (1996). Think managerThink male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 3341. Sczesny S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353363. Sczesny S, Bosak J, Neff D, Schyns B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51, 631645. Seltzer J, Bass BM. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693703. Stroh LK, Brett JM, Reilly AH. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male managers career progression. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251260. Swim JK, Mallet R, Stangor C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117128. Twenge JM. (1997a). Attitudes toward women, 19701995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 3551. Twenge JM. (1997b). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305325. Vecchio RP. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643 671. Vecchio RP. (2003). In search of gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835850.
845
Welle B. (2004, April). Whats holding women back? Barriers to womens advancement as perceived by top executives. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. Wellington S, Kropf MB, Gerkovich PR. (2003). Whats holding women back? Harvard Business Review, 81, 1819. Ziegert JC, Hanges PJ. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553562.
APPENDIX A Items in Various Scales

Agentic Characteristics Aggressive Ambitious Analytical Ability Assertive Dominant Forceful Self-condent Communal Characteristics Aware of the feelings of others Creative Helpful Kind Passive Submissive Sympathetic Task-Oriented Leadership Competent Competitive Decisive Independent Industrious Intelligent Logical Objective Skilled in business matters Speedy recovery from emotional disturbances
Relationship-Oriented Leadership Compassionate Cooperative Fair Good listener Inclusive Intuitive Shows appreciation Sociable Tactful Understanding Transformational Leadership Attends to the needs of others Considerate Considers others ideas Encouraging Energetic Enthusiastic Inspiring Open-minded Optimistic Sense of purpose Sincere Supportive Trustworthy
Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.
846
APPENDIX B Items Rated Most Characteristic of Successful Middle Managers

Attribute Leadership ability Competent Knowledgeable Consistent Self-condent Trustworthy Self-controlled Well-informed Intelligent Fair Sense of purpose Skilled in business matters Mean rating 4.61 4.58 4.49 4.48 4.43 4.37 4.35 4.35 4.34 4.33 4.33 4.33
Note. These items were selected from the total 118 adjectives as those most highly endorsed in the successful middle manager condition. N = 215 list-wise. Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.

Men, Women and Managers

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Men, Women and Managers

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2006, 59, 815846

MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE STEREOTYPES FINALLY CHANGING?

2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

Scale 1. Agentic 2. Communal 3. Task 4. Relationship 5. Transformational

1 .78 .33 .69 .03 .16

2 .73 .06 .68 .60

.80 .39 .50

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

Schein (1973) male managers Male managers Female managers

Heilman et al. (1989) male managers

Brenner et al. (1989) female managers

Schein et al. (1989) male students

Female students .35 .45 .91 .78 .98

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

Note. All values are signicant at p < .01.

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

2 .57 .75 .50 .04 .08

.55 .25 .05 .03

.42 .06 .05

TABLE 8 Regression Analyses Predicting Successful Manager Composite

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO

APPENDIX A Items in Various Scales

APPENDIX B Items Rated Most Characteristic of Successful Middle Managers

S-ar putea să vă placă și