a nother ceilling_can males compete for traditionally female jobs_atwater, l. e. and van fleet, d....

8/14/2019 A nother ceilling_can males compete for traditionally female jobs_Atwater, L. E. and Van Fleet, D. D. 1997.pdf

1/25

http://jom.sagepub.com

Journal of Management

DOI: 10.1177/0149206397023005011997; 23; 603Journal of Management

Leanne E. Atwater and David D. Van FleetA Nother Ceiling? Can Males Compete for Traditionally Female Jobs?

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/5/603The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/5/603Citations

at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.southernmanagement.org/http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/5/603http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/5/603http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.southernmanagement.org/


2/25

Journal of Management1997, Vol. 23, No. 5, 603.626

A NOTHER CEIL INGCAN MALES COMPETE FOR

TRADITIONALLY FEMALE JOBSLeanne E. AtwaterDavid D. Van Fleet

Arizona State University West

Subjects ranked hypothetical male and female job applicants fortop- and mid-level management positions in a traditionally female job.Consistent with a lack offit explanation, over one-fourth of the ratersselected a less-qualified female over a more qualified male for both thetop-level and mid-level jobs. Additionally, those subjects with manage-ment experience tended to make decisions favoring the less-qualifiedfemale more often than those without management experience. Resultssuggested that males may suffer from discrimination in traditionallyfemale jobs similar to that faced by females in traditionally male jobs.

One of the dramatic changes in the work force has been the increasing proportionof women working in what were once thought to be traditionally male jobs.Historically, management positions have been included among the traditionallymale jobs, though the proportion of women filling lower and mid-level manage-ment positions in recent years has steadily increased (Dalton & Kesner, 1993).The proportion of women in top management positions, however, has remainedvery low. This lack of equal representation of women in top-management posi-tions has been attributed to a glass ceiling, an invisible barrier that keepswomen from entering top-level management positions (Morrison, White & VanVelsor, 1987).

A number of reasons have been suggested for the existence of the glass ceil-ing. First, some contend that males or male characteristics are preferred formanagement positions (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989). Others suggestthat perhaps there have been too few women qualified for or interested in top-level management positions. Another reason may be tradition: management mayhave been seen as a male domain because, until recently, most managers and themajority of the work force in most jobs were male. Wharton and Baron (1987)offered a different explanation: People prefer to work with others of the same

Direct all correspondence to: Leanne E. Atwater. Arizona State University West, School of Management, 4701W. Thunderbird Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100.

Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063603

http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


3/25

604 LEANNE E. ATWATER AND DAVID D. VAN FLEET

gender, hence men would be more suitable to supervise men. If the same-sexpreference holds (that is, if males and females prefer and rate those of their owngender more highly) we would expect females to be considered more suitable tomanage females. However, little research has directly addressed the potential forprofemale bias in personnel decisions concerning traditionally female jobs, whilea substantial body of evidence has documented that selection decisions for tradi-tionally male positions have been biased against females (Deaux, 1984; Dipboye,Fromkin & Wiback, 1975; Rosen & Jerdee, 1974; Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). Nilson(1976) did find that male nurses were rated lower in prestige than female nurses.Additionally, males applying for secretarial, receptionist, or office clerk jobs havebeen clearly discriminated against in hiring decisions (Levinson, 1975; BusinessWeek, July 31, 1995).The present study investigated the extent to which males and femalesshowed profemale bias in personnel decisions regarding m~agers of ~aditionallyfemale jobs. Are females preferred over more qualified males as managers infemale jobs? Are females preferred if those making decisions know the subordi-nates are predominantly females?Also investigated were personnel decisions regarding managers in lower-versus higher-level management positions. For female jobs, are females consid-ered more suitable for both mid-level and top-level management positions?

BackgroundRater Gender Effects

The extent to which a rater sees himself or herself as similar to a ratee hasbeen shown to influence ratings. Specifically, the rater/ratee congruence hypothe-sis (Pazy, 1986; Tsui & OReilly, 1989) suggests that raters who see ratees asmore similar to themselves will rate them more positively. Therefore, womenwould be expected to rate other women more highly than would men. Pazy (1986)demonstrated that when the task was gender neutral, males tended to rate hypo-thetical male employees higher than females given identical performance infor-mation. When the job is not gender neutral, but rather male gender-typed, anumber of field studies have suggested that bias against females is morepronounced for male raters than for female raters. Jacobson, Antonelli, Winningand OPeil (1977), for instance, found that women in positions of authority overmen were evaluated negatively by those men, but were not evaluated negativelyby women subordinates. Sillily, Stevens and DeNisi (1980) and Van Fleet andSaurage (1984) found women had more positive attitudes toward women manag-ers than men did. Whether gender of evaluator affects ratings of candidates in afemale gender-typed job has not been tested. Given the differences describedabove in male and female ratings of males and females, we hypothesized thatfemales would be more likely than males to select a female applicant as managerin a ~aditionally female job.

HI: Female evaluators will be more likely to display profemale biasin their applicant ranking decisions than will males.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23 NO. 5.1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


4/25

ANOTHER CEI LI NG? 605

Gender Bias in Selection DecisionsIn the 1970s researchers demonstrated that certain jobs were seen as male

or female and that both males and females suffered when applying for sex-atyp-ical jobs (cf. Cohen & Bunker, 1975; Cash, Gillen & Burns, 1977). Additionally,in 1978 Rose and Andiappan found that both males and females were biased intheir selection decisions in favor of managers whose gender matched the majorityof their subordinates. Thus, a predominantly male work force created obstaclesfor women applying for management jobs.However, more recent evidence suggests that this trend may be changing.Women are having greater access to traditionally male jobs than they have had inthe past, For example, Pazy (1992) actually found profemale bias among subjectsasked to rate applicants for promotion to a management position in a gender-neutral job. Powell and Butterfield (1994) found no gender bias in selection deci-sions for senior-level executive positions in federal civil service (traditionallythought to be the domain of males). Haemmerlie and Montgomery (199 1) discon-firmed Goldbergs (1968) classic finding that both males and females placed ahigher value on work done by a male. In the Haemmerlie and Montgomery study,the opposite was found. In engineering and law (occupations traditionally domi-nated by males), work was evaluated more positively when done by females thanby males. Additionally, from 1981 to 1991 the percentage of women managers inthe workplace increased 14 percent (from 27 to 41 percent) (Dalton & Kesner,1993). It appears that females are now being accepted as viable managementcandidates in many arenas and may even be the preferred candidates in some jobs.Stover (1994), for instance, found that in universities, women were likely to befound managing departments with a high proportion of women in them. Reskinand Ross (1992) similarly found that women were typically placed in positionsresponsible for females.Perhaps the shift toward more diversity in the work force and the great dealof time and money that have been spent on sensitizing employees and studentsabout issues of diversity and equal opportunity have sensitized individuals togender equality. If this is the case, we would expect personnel decisions to bebased on qualifications, with no consideration of who is the appropriate gender.Or, alternatively, gender bias may shift from bias against females to biasagainst males as more women enter the work force and more jobs are consideredfemale territory. There is some evidence that females are more likely to beentering and advancing in traditionally male occupations than are males in tradi-tionally female fields (Jacobs & Lim, 1992; Beller, 1985). The female share ofmale-dominated occupations is also increasing more than the male share offemale-dominated jobs (Cotter, DeFiore, Hermsen, Kowalewski & Vanneman,1995). If managing women is a womans job, management positions in tradition-ally female jobs may be seen as best filled by women.

Heilmans lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983) suggests that . . .expectationsabout how successful or unsuccessful an individual will be when working in aparticular job are determined by the fit between the perception of the jobsrequirements in terms of skills and abilities. (p.278). In a gender-typed job, indi-

J OURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


5/25


viduals of the proper gender will be seen as fitting the job whereas those of theinappropriate gender will not be seen as fitting.Consistency theory (Feather & Simon, 1975) would also predict that males

would be seen as unsuitable for female jobs and vice versa, because the type of workis inconsistent with the masculine or feminine image. Williams (1992), for exam-ple, cites four jobs that have been identified with womens work throughout the20th century-nursing, librarianship, elementary school teaching and social work.In these female gender-typed jobs, male characteristics would be seen as unfit;similarly, women would be perceived as unfit for construction or fire-fighting.

Thus, both consistency theory and the lack of fit model would predict thatmales would be seen as unsuitable for female jobs, and therefore likely to sufferfrom gender discrimination similar to that faced by women who have attempted toenter male gender-typed jobs, If this is the case, as women enter the work forceand predominate in certain jobs, we could expect a new ceiling to emerge formales. Similar to the glass ceiling females have faced, males may be consideredill-suited to manage in female domains.

Two related, more specific questions are also relevant here. First, is the levelof management an issue when males seek female management jobs? In otherwords, if women are now being seen as viable applicants for mid-level positionsbut less likely applicants for top-level positions, are men suffering a similar ceil-ing when the jobs are traditionally female? History would suggest that when itcomes to top executive positions, men are filling them regardless of which genderdominates the job; but this may be because until recently the majority of jobs wereseen as male gender-typed. Thus, male managers have been seen as a bettergender fit. Consistency theory and the lack of fit model would suggest thatperhaps females will be seen as suitable top managers when the job is femalegender-typed.The second question addresses the ratio of female-to-male subordinates to besupervised. Kanter (1977), known for her theory of tokenism, argues that whenany group represents less than 15% of an organization, its members will besubject to predictable forms of discrimination. That is, they will suffer from theirminority status. If evaluators know that the majority of job incumbents to besupervised are female, they may be more likely to select a female manager. Asmentioned earlier, bias against males has been demonstrated when the majority ofsubordinates to be supervised were female (Rose & Andiappan, 1978). However,the study by Rose and Andiappan was done a number of years ago and the biasmay no longer exist.Because the males are managers stereotype appears to be changing and thebias against women decreasing, we believed the gender-type of the job (i.e.,Social Work) would have more influence on selection decisions than the manage-rial nature of the job. Consistency theory and lack of fit both would suggest thatfemales would be seen as more suitable for traditionally female jobs. However,because the gender type of the top-management job might be unclear, (i.e., SocialWork is female but top managers are male), we expected less bias in decisionsfavoring females for a top-level female gender-typed job than in decisions for amid-level management job.JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997



6/25

ANOTHER CEILING? 607

H2A: Male and female evaluators will show profemale bias in appli-cant rankings for top-level management positions in traditionallyfemale jobs.H2B: Male and female evaluators will show profemale bias in appli-cant rankings for mid-level management positions in traditionallyfemale j obs

H2C: Male and female evaluators will show more profemale bias inapplicant rankings for mid-level than top-level management positions ina traditionally female job.H3: In applicant ranking decisions for managers of traditionallyfemale jobs, profemale bias will be more pronounced when it is clearthat the majority of the subordinates are females than when the numberoffemale subordinates is unknown.

Rater ExperienceFamiliarity with supervisor-subordinate interaction as it relates to gender

could also affect the raters rankings of applicants. For example, raters who hadprior management experience may have witnessed situations where matchingmanager and subordinate genders resulted in better performance, or less conflict.Consistent with the rater/ratee congruence hypothesis, prior research has demon-strated that subordinates tend to rate their supervisors more positively if the super-visor and subordinate are of the same gender (cf. Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning &OPeil, 1977; Van Fleet & Saurage, 1984). Observation of better working rela-tionships between same sex supervisor/subordinate dyads would also support thelack of fit model and promote stereotypes that females should supervisefemales. Also, those with prior management experience have likely been exposedto more training in diversity and affirmative action, and thus may be more sensi-tized to the value of selecting females for management jobs. As a result, wehypothesized the following.

H4: Raters with management experience will show more profemalebias than raters with no management experience.

Salary Allocation DecisionsWhile selection decisions for management positions are one avenue to use in

assessing potential gender bias, selection/promotion decisions represent only onetype of potential bias: negative access discrimination (Rosenstein & Hitt, 1986).A second type of bias, unequal treatment discrimination (Baker, Slonaker &Wendt, 1994), refers to decisions such as allocating starting salaries or salaryincreases. The evidence concerning promale bias in terms of pay is convincing.Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) found that women who have advancedinto management often find reward differentials when comparing themselves tomen. Drazin and Auster (1987) found that women earn substantially less than men

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


7/25


in management. Blau and Ferber (1987) pointed out that employers with discrimi-natory biases hire women only at a wage discount large enough to compensate forthe loss of utility or level of discomfort associated with employing them.

That these pay differentials are attributable to women being less qualified orless experienced has not been supported (ONeill, 1992). To the contrary, in the1970s two studies found that males were likely to be offered higher initial sala-ries than comparably qualified females (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977;Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). Both males and females perceived wage discriminationfavoring males (Rosen, Rynes, & Mahoney, 1983; Lewis, 1991). Nearly one-thirdof the women questioned by Lewis felt they had been discriminated against in apromotion or salary increase because they were female. Similarly, Nelson-Horchler (199 1) found that a large proportion of females (74%) as well as 26% ofthe males felt that women received less pay for equal work. Controlling for insti-tutional, individual, and positional characteristics, Pfeffer (1990) found thatwomens salaries were lower than mens among 20,000 high-level administrativepositions in 821 colleges and universities.

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for these salary differ-ences between males and females. For example, wage expectations have beensuggested as a contributing factor. Jackson and Grabski (1988) found that womenwere more likely than men to believe that less pay is fair. Nivea and Gutek (198 1)and Major and Konar (1989) concluded that women value pay less than men do.Thus, in terms of pay, women may be earning less because they expect to earnless, or value pay less.

If females are being discriminated against in salary decisions in traditionallymale jobs, it may also be because they are viewed as less desirable and, therefore,of less worth. Similar logic may hold for males in female jobs. Males may be seenas less desirable for traditionally female jobs due to the lack of fit (Heilman,1980), and thus offered lower salaries. This seems unlikely for the followingreasons. First male characteristics are seen as more valuable than femalecharacteristics, particularly for managerial jobs (Gutek & Cohen, 1987; Stover,1994). Second, the status of a job has been shown to increase as the number ofmales entering the job goes up and to decrease as the number of females in the jobincreases. For example, Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1987) found in a study ofcollege administrators that the average salaries went down as the proportion ofwomen in the group went up. Freedman and Phillips (1988) describe this assupport for institutionization, which in essence says that at the point wherework is defined as womens work, wages (and, therefore, status) will decrease.As such, males may be offered even higher salaries than usual if they apply forlower-status female jobs in order to attract them. Third, the bulk of evidence onsalary disparities between men and women still suggests that males are paid morethan females even when education, job tenure, and experience are accounted for(cf. Taber, 1992). Thus, while women may be seen as more suitable for femalegender-typed jobs, this will not alter the perception that work done by women is,nevertheless, worth less in monetary value than work done by men. Additionally,if salary inequities are due in part to different salary expectations on the part ofmales and females, we might expect the salaries offered to job applicants by malesJ OURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997



8/25


and females to differ. Two additional hypotheses follow from the above discus-sion:

HSA: Males Mjill be allocated higher salaries than females when the)are selected as the first-choice applicant for a top-level marlagementposition in a traditiorzally,female job.HSB: Males wYl1 be allocated higher salaries than females when theyare selected as the first-choice applicant for a mid-level rnarlagernentposition in a traditional \ female job.H6: Male evaluators will allocate higher salaries thun M,ill femaleevaluators to job applicants selected for managerial positions in tradi-tionally female jobs.

MethodThis methodology section is organized as follows: First. we present a

description of the pre-test completed to identify female gender-typed jobs. Next, adescription of the main study is presented. Third, the following are described:subjects; the experimental task; the selection scenarios created; the three experi-mental conditions; the information provided about hypothetical job applicants;data collection procedures; and the ranking and salary allocation tasks thatsubjects completed. Finally, the data collection design is summarized.IdentifLing Gender-Typed Jobs

The determination of gender-typing of jobs was assessed empirically.Ninety-nine undergraduate business students from three universities were askedto review a list of seven academic disciplines and indicate whether they believed amale or a female would be more successful as the Dean (top-level manager) inthat academic discipline. The job of Dean was selected as a top-level managementposition based on the work of Sandler and Hall (1986). The same students werealso asked to review a similar list of disciplines and indicate whether they thoughta male or a female would be more successful as a Coordinator (mid-levelmanager) in that discipline.Surprisingly, virtually no students felt that this request was inappropriate, orthat there was no such thing as a job more suitable to a man or a woman. Over-whelmingly, the students were able to assign either a male or a female as morelikely to be successful in each of the seven disciplines rated for top-level manag-ers: Engineering; Physical Education and Sports Medicine; Business; Architec-ture and Environmental Design; Social Sciences; Social Work; and Nursing. Thedisciplines rated for mid-level manager were indicative of a specialty within eacharea. For example, instead of Engineering, the Coordinator managed a groupwithin Electrical Engineering. As can be seen from the data presented in Table 1,both male and female students saw Engineering at both levels as a male job,followed closely by Physical Education and Sports Medicine. Nursing and SocialWork were seen by both males and females as female jobs. Female respondents

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23. NO. 5 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


9/25


Table 1 Results of Pretest to Determine Gender-typing of Jobs:Frequencies of Subjects Indicating Gender-type of Job

A. Top-Level Position (Dean)Male Respondents Female Respondents Total Respondents

Male Female Male Female Male FemaleJob Either Job Job Either Job Job Either Job

EngineeringPhysical Education

and Sports MedicineBusinessArchitecture and

Environmental DesignSocial SciencesSocial WorkNursing

44 5 1 34 1 5 78 6 6

42 6 2 35 1 4 71 7 636 8 6 18 1 21 54 9 27

34 6 10 23 1 16 57 7 2620 8 32 11 1 28 31 9 60

6 5 39 3 1 36 9 6 754 4 42 0 1 39 4 5 81

B. Mid-Level Position (Coordinator)Electrical EngineeringSports MedicineAccountingArchitecture and

Environmental DesignSocial SciencesSocial WorkNursing

and Patient Accounts

44 7 2 34 1 3 78 8 541 9 3 29 0 9 70 9 1233 10 10 15 1 22 48 11 32

37 10 6 23 1 14 60 16 2018 9 26 8 1 29 26 10 553 9 41 3 1 34 6 10 75

4 7 42 1 1 36 5 8 78

tended to see Business as a job suitable for males and females, while males sawBusiness as a male job. Both Architecture and Social Science were seen asrather neutral jobs by both males and females.Because we were interested in potential gender bias in a female gender-typed job, Social Work was selected as the female gender-typed job for thepurposes of this study. Work by Beggs and Doolittle (1993) suggested that whilesome occupations had become more gender-neutral since the 1970s, Social Workhas become more female gender-typed. Nursing was not selected because earlierwork (cf. Cohen & Bunker, 1975) had suggested that it was so sex-bound thatindividuals might not be able to remove biases associated with this occupation (cf.JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23. NO. 5 1997



10/25


Williams, 1992), despite the fact that a large number of male nurses performexceptionally well in the field.SubjectsSubjects were 191 business students from a medium-sized southwesternuniversity. Roughly half of the students were male and half were female, andapproximately half held a management position either now or in the past. Whilethere is some controversy in the literature as to whether students decisions arecomparable to those of real managers in the field, few studies have revealeddifferences between students and managers when sex-role stereotypes are studied(Bernstein, Hakel, & Harlan, 1975; Dipboye, Fromkin & Wiback, 1975; Rosen &Jerdee, 1974). Mullins (1982) has also supported the external validity of usingstudents as decision-makers in employment decision studies. Some critics of labstudies of potential bias suggested that bias would be greater when the raters didnot know personally the individuals being rated. As such, they hypothesized thatactual decisions made in work settings would reveal less bias than contrived deci-sion situations. Contrary to this belief, Ilgen and Youtz (1986) found that biasagainst racial minorities was greater in the field than in the lab.

Additionally, the students who served as subjects in this study were notyoung, full-time students. Most were employed, over half had management expe-rience, and their average age was 29 years. We believed this was a useful samplein which to study gender bias in that these individuals represent the work force,and likely the managerial ranks, of the future. Understanding their biases, if any,may give us insight about what to expect of decision-makers in the 21st century.

Subject Profile. Subjects completed an information sheet about them-selves, indicating their gender, their age, and whether they presently (or previ-ously) held a management position. To reduce the likelihood of subjectsdiscerning the purpose of the study, the subject information sheet was alwaysprovided as the last sheet in the set of materials.Procedure

The Task. A simulated selection decision experiment was designed usingpaper people to assess potential profemale bias. Paper people were desirable forthis study as we wanted to ensure that the target male applicant in each decisionscenario was noticeably more qualified than the target female applicant, thoughboth would be considered qualified. This type of scenario would have been diffi-cult, if not impossible, to create in a real personnel selection setting. A set of testmaterials was designed to create a scenario for a hypothetical management selec-tion/salary allocation decision. These materials were reviewed by colleagueexperts and were judged to be face valid; that is, they appeared to be legitimatejob applicant materials.Subjects were asked to review two packets of materials. Each packetcontained information about a large university and the managerial job for whichfour hypothetical applicants were being evaluated. One packet included materialsdescribing job-relevant characteristics about two male and two female applicantsfor a top-level management position (Dean of Social Work). The second packet

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


11/25


contained materials about four hypothetical applicants for a mid-level manage-ment position (Coordinator of Activities within a Social Work department).

Top and M id level Management Scenar ios. In the scenario presented forthe Deans job, the Dean managed a faculty of 85 and a staff of 20, had an annualbudget of over 4 million dollars, and was paid a starting salary of $90,000, whichwas described as somewhat below average. The Coordinators job was consid-ered a mid-level management job in which the individual was described as super-vising 4 people and managing a budget of $250,000. The $45,000 salary for thisposition was also described as somewhat below average. In one condition, theratios of male and female subordinates to be supervised by the Dean and Coordi-nator were given.

Experimental Conditions. Subjects ranked one set of applicants for thetop-level job and a different set of applicants for the mid-level job in one of threeconditions. In all three conditions, the descriptions of the applicants qualifica-tions were identical. In Condition 1, no names or genders of applicants wereprovided. Rather, applicants were identified by numbers only. Condition 1 servedas a manipulation check and a comparison group. In Condition 2, applicants wereidentified by names that clearly indicated whether they were male or female. InCondition 3, applicants names were identified as in Condition 2, and the raterswere also told the number of males and females the manager would supervise. Allfour employees to be supervised in the mid-level, Coordinator position werefemale, and 100 of the 105 total in the top-level (Dean) position were female.2

Hypothetical Job Appl icants. Each packet contained a description of fourhypothetical job applicants-two males and two females. Included in the descrip-tion was a subject identifier, which consisted of either a number [in Condition l]or a name [Conditions 2 and 31. The names were clearly indicative of gender: Jeff,Cheryl, Greg, and Carol for the Dean; Steve, Sara, Laura and Tim for the Coordi-nator. The individuals current position was also identified (e.g., Associate Deanfor the Deans job; Social Worker for the Coordinators job).

In each scenario, one of the males and one of the females was clearly under-qualified relative to the other two. Descriptions of the under-qualified individualswere included as distractions from the purpose of the study. The other (qualified)male and female applicants for each job currently held the same jobs, with themale slightly, but noticeably, more qualified.The reason for presenting the male as the more qualified applicant for thetraditionally female job was to test whether the gender stereotype of the job wouldtake precedence over qualifications in decisions. In other words, we purposelybiased the qualifications in favor of the gender opposite to the gender type of thejob. A male was the more qualified applicant for both the top-level and mid-levelmanagement jobs. In this way, if a female were selected or given a higher salary,it would be clear that the decision was not based on an interpretation of qualifica-tions, but rather in spite of them. In other words, we wanted to test whether afemale would be seen as more suited to manage in a stereotypically female jobeven if she was less qualified than a male.Also included was a listing of 11 categories of job-relevant information, witha hand-written comment beside each job category about the applicants compe-J OURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997



12/25


tence in that area. Subjects were led to believe that these comments had beencompiled by a search committee attempting to hire an individual for each position.The categories of information included: Current position, education, general abil-ity, decision-making capability, number of years in current position, effort usuallyput into work, number of years of experience, willingness to sacrifice personaltime to perform needed tasks, leadership ability, creativity in approaching newproblems, willingness to perform tasks not liked by giving up personal prefer-ences, and a comments section. To clearly distinguish the most qualified indi-vidual from the person next most qualified, the information provided in the threecategories was different. The most qualified individual for the Deans job (a malein Conditions 2 and 3) had 5 years in his current position, 9-l/2 years academicexperience, and excellent leadership ratings, while the lesser qualified individual(a female in Conditions 2 and 3) had 4-l/2 years in her current position, 9 yearsacademic experience very good ratings in leadership ability. For the Coordina-tors position, in Conditions 2 and 3 the more qualified male applicant had 5 yearsin his current position compared to 3-l/2 years for the female, excellent leader-ship ability as compared to very good, and 5 years as compared to 3-l/2 yearsof job experience. The information provided about applicants was identical ineach of the three conditions (no names, names, names plus number of femalesubordinates).Terborg and Ilgen (1975) suggested that the bias effect of stereotypingwomen is most potent when little is known about the female being evaluated.Other more recent work has suggested that gender role stereotypes can be overrid-den if sufficient job-relevant information about male and female applicants isprovided (Tosi & Einbender, 1985). Similarly, Heilman (1984) found that highlyjob-relevant information produced less differential treatment of female and malejob applicants than information low in job relevance. Pazy (1992) found that jobexperience, not gender, was the primary consideration in the promotion decisionsfor mid-level management decisions. In this study, the number of pieces of task-relevant information, plus an indication that the gender-incongruent applicant wasmore qualified in three areas, was intended to provide the decision-maker withadequate reasons to select the male for the mid- and top-level management jobs.Thus, if the female were selected or given a higher salary, the decision would notbe based on qualifications, but rather on gender congruence with a traditionallyfemale job.To confirm that the individual we had identified as most qualified wasindeed seen that way, one set of materials was prepared with numbers substitutedfor names to identify the four applicants (Condition 1). This provided a standardagainst which to assess results in the other two conditions. Subjects evaluatedmaterials in one of the three conditions and were asked to make selection andother decisions twice-once for the Deans position and again for the Coordina-tor. To reduce potential order effects for the two jobs, the two packets werepresented in alternating order, i.e., the decisions for Dean applicants were madefirst by half of the subjects, and the Coordinator decisions were made first by theremaining half of the subjects. Also, the four applicants materials weresequenced in the packet in two different ways so that order effects could be tested.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23. NO. 5 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


13/25


In one order, the more qualified males materials appeared first, the lesser quali-fied females materials appeared third, and unqualified applicants appearedsecond and fourth. In the second order, the applicants materials were reversed,the more qualified male appeared last and the qualified female appeared second.When the data were analyzed, there were no order effects; e.g., the qualified malewas no more (or less) likely to be selected if his materials appeared first than ifthey appeared third.

Data Collection Procedures. Data were collected from students in 12different management classes of varying size (e.g., 15-40) over a period of threeweeks. The decision about which classes completed materials in each of the threeconditions was random, and therefore groups of subjects were randomly assignedto conditions. Materials were handed out and subjects were told that we wereinterested in the information individuals use in making selection decisions.Subjects were then asked to review the materials and answer the questions.Subjects were thanked for their voluntary participation but were not debriefed atthe time about our hypotheses, because we did not want to bias responses of futuresubjects. Once all data were collected and analyzed, subjects were informed aboutthe purpose and results of the study via the school newspaper.

Rankings and Salary Al locations. For each job, subjects were asked toselect their first and second choices for filling the job, and then to indicate thesalary they would offer their first- and second-ranked applicants, keeping in mindthat the present salaries were identified as somewhat below average. An open-ended question asked subjects why they ranked each of their first-choice appli-cants higher than their second-choice applicants.Subjects were asked to rank their choices, rather than to provide ratingsbecause earlier research has shown that more differentiation is likely to beobserved when applicants are ranked rather than rated, and consequently bias ismore likely to be seen if it exists (Dipboye, Arvey & Terpstra, 1977; Dipboye,Fromkin & Wiback, 1975; Pazy, 1986; Pazy, 1992). Ranking is also more realisticin selection decisions and less subject to distributional errors like leniency(Bernardin & Beatty, 1984).Data Collection Design

A summary of the variables considered in the study, then, includes thefollowing: rater genders (male or female), raters prior or current managementexperience (yes or no), condition (no names, names only, names plus number offemale subordinates), and level of management position considered (mid or top).The level of management variable was repeated. The dependent variables of inter-est were the applicant selected first (male versus female) and the salary allocatedto the selected applicant.Table 2 graphically presents the data collection design. As can be seen fromTable 2, there are 12 possible conditions from which data were collected (Sl-12).Subjects in each of those 12 conditions, however, could select either the mostqualified applicant or another applicant. In the first four conditions (no name), theexpectation was that only the most qualified applicant would be selected, hencethe number or proportion of subjects selecting an incorrect applicant would beJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23. NO. 5. 1997



14/25

AcCo

ReS

MamEe

L

D

Tae2DaCeoDg

NNm

NmOy

NmSdne

Me

Fme

Me

Fme

Me

Fme

N

SmN

SmN

SmN

SmNSmN

Sm

S1s2

s3

s4

S

S

S

S

S

s1

S

s1

LCdno

S

s2

s3

s4

S

S

S

S

S

SOS

s1

9

Ne

Teae1pbecofomwcdaweceeS1Sesineohcocdseehhmqeaco

n E

ahacInh

ocmnnmheaowhoyhmqeacwdhseeh

hnmopoo

f

osuessenaneacwdbzomnhoconcoTdgodaaysthcmnoowhda

co

dgsnsnpbeopomcmaofoaneaoinvnhncothwdbmvnau3XXXdg

atUniversitetIOsloonDecember14,

2009

http://jom.sagepub.com

Downloadedfrom
http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


15/25


16/25


Table 3. Proportion of Individuals Ranking Female as First Choice CandidateProportion and Number Srlecring Less Quulified Fern&

Dean 5c/(> 29@ 32Pb(top-level) 2138 23179 18156Coordinator 3% 267~~ 24%~~~(mid-level) l/38 20176 15163

Note: The proportions n both conditions 2 and 3 differed sigmficantly (11< .OS) from the te\t proportion I.The proportIons in conditions ? and 3 did wt differ significantly (p>.OS) from one another.Alpha\ were adjusted using Bonferoma procedure to account for the four teats done.

increase over the proportion who selected the comparable applicant when genderwas unknown, thus supporting H2B.H2C proposed that more profemale bias would be shown in the mid-levelmanagement position than in the top-level position. This hypothesis was notsupported. The proportions of raters selecting the female when applicant genderwas known and when both applicants and subordinates genders were known

were not significantly different for top- and mid-level jobs.Regarding H3, there was no significant increase in the number of times thefemale applicant was selected for the Deans job when the gender was known forboth applicant and subordinates rather than for applicant only. In this case, 32percent of the raters selected the female for the Deans job. Thus, H3 was notsupported. For the Coordinators job, 24 percent selected the female when both theapplicants and the subordinates genders were known (see Table 3), again not asignificant difference from when only the applicants gender was known. In bothgender known and gender and subordinates known conditions, however, profe-male bias existed-a significant proportion of the raters selected the female for atraditionally female job, even when she was less qualified than a male applicant.While profemale bias was not more pronounced when the manager wassupervising predominantly females, the comments that raters provided about whythey selected their first choice applicant were more likely to indicate that thefemale was chosen because of her gender when the number of females to besupervised was given. When the gender of the applicant was unknown, the morequalified individual was almost always selected and reasons given for that selec-tion never included attributions about gender. Overwhelmingly, leadership skillsand/or ability and experience were given as the reasons for the selection. Thesewere the factors we used to present the male as the more qualified applicant, thussupporting thevalidity of this manipulation. When gender was known, for theDeans position, 16% of the reasons given by those who selected the female indi-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. S, 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


17/25


cated that they did so specifically because of her gender. In the condition wheresubordinates genders were known, 44% of the reasons given by those selectingthe female indicated that they selected the female for the Deans job because afemale is more suited to supervise females. Statements made by respondentsincluded a female is better suited to supervise females, a female might respondto employees better, and supervising more females. When subordinatesgenders were known, 40% of the reasons given by those selecting the female indi-cated that being female was their reason for selecting a female for the Coordina-tors job. These comments provide additional support for our contention thatraters were, in fact, selecting individuals for the job based on gender rather thanqualifications, particularly where predominantly women would be supervised.To test H4, we compared the selections made by subjects who currently held,or had held, a management position with those who had no management experi-ence. In support of H4, a z-test of differences between proportions indicated thatthose who currently held or who had held a management position were morelikely to select the less-qualified female for the Deans job (61%) than were thosewho had not held a management position (39%) @ < .05).6 In this case, those withmanagement experience were more likely to select the less-qualified female thanthose with no experience. There was not a significant difference in selection deci-sions as a function of management experience for the Coordinators job.

While we did not hypothesize any interactions, we felt it was prudent, giventhe main effects, to test for interactions.7We compared the gender known condition with the gender unknown condi-tion. (The gender and subordinates condition was not included as it was not signif-icantly different from the gender known condition and would have added

needlessly to the number of tests performed.) Z-tests for differences in propor-tions of females selected were computed to test the two-way interactions (i.e.,gender by management experience, gender by condition, and condition bymanagement experience for both the Dean and Coordinators jobs). There were nosignificant interactions for the Deans job. There was one significant interactionbetween gender and management experience in ranking decisions for the Coordi-nators job (p < .Ol). Females with management experience were significantlymore likely to select a female for the Coordinator job than were males with orwithout experience or females with no management experience. We also testedfor an interaction between condition (names versus no names) and position (Deanversus Coordinator). This interaction was not significant.Summary of Selection Decision Results

To summarize the selection decision results, profemale bias existed forselection decisions made in traditionally female jobs. The profemale bias existedfor both male and female raters, and for both top-level and mid-level jobs. Speci-fying the number of female subordinates to be supervised did not significantlyalter the profemale bias in decisions, though raters were more likely to say genderwas the reason for selecting a female if they knew females would be supervised.Additionally, those subjects with management experience were more likely tomake decisions favoring the less-qualified female than were those withoutJ OURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997



18/25


Table 4. Analyses of Variance for Salary Decisions forTop-Level and Mid-Level Management Jobs

A. Top-level Manager (Dean)Main Effects and Interactions dfMale vs Female Selected (MF) 1Condition (C) 1Gender of Rater (G) 1MFXC 1MFXG 1CXG 1MFXCXG I

F.79.Ol

4.17*.95

1.98.42.02

B. Mid-level Manager (Coordinator)Male vs Female Selected 1 2.13Condition 1 .OlGender of Rater 1 .ooMFXC 1 .I5MFXG 1 1.43CXG 1 .98MFXCXG 1 3.24

*p < .05

management experience, and females with management experience were morelikely to rank the female applicant first than males or females without manage-ment experience.Salary Allocation Decisions

Differences in salary allocations as a function of condition, rater gender, andapplicant gender were tested. Only the two conditions where gender was knownwere tested, as we were interested in differences allocated to male and femaleapplicants. Two 2X2X2 analyses of variance (2 conditions by male versus femaleselected first by gender of rater) were performed; one for Deans and one for Coor-dinators. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4. Means, standarddeviations and ranges for males and females selected first for each job, as well asa breakdown of average salaries offered to males and females and by males andfemales, are presented in Table 5. A breakdown by condition was omitted aseffects for this variable were near zero.

As can be seen from Table 4, there were no main effects for male versusfemale selected. That is, contrary to H5A and H5B males were not allocatedhigher salaries than females for either the top- or mid-level job. H6 wassupported, however, for the top-level (Deans) job in that males allocated higherJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23 NO. 5. 1997



19/25


Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Salaries Allocated toMales and Females Selected as Dean and Coordinator

Male SelectedFirst as DeanFemale SelectedFirst as DeanMale SelectedFirst as CoordinatorFemale SelectedFirst as Coordinator

MNlfl$97.622100.15350.98548.083

StcitdartlLk~icttiotl

9.37512,1158.4587.180

Mit~itttiitti Mnxittturil80.000 150,00075.000 130.00030,000 100,00027.000 60.000

Average SalaryOffered byFemale Raters

$95.453 46,769 96.293 51,453

Average SalaryOffered byMale Raters

103,600 49,636 98.95 1 50.557

salaries overall than did females (M for males = $100,196 vs. M forfemales = $96,115). Males did not allocate higher salaries for the mid-level job.In looking at the ranges and standard deviations presented in Table 5, large

variances in salary allocations occurred, indicating that salary allocation deci-sions seemed to vary a great deal across raters. For example, even though thepresent salary was given, the salaries allocated for the Deans job when the malewas selected ranged from $60,000 to $150,000, a wide range. This may be anindication of error variance and could have contributed to the lack of effectsfound.

DiscussionClearly, the most interesting result of this study was the tendency for someraters to select for managerial positions a less-qualified female rather than a more-qualified male when the job to be managed was traditionally female. This effect

was demonstrated for both male and female raters, at both mid- and top-levels ofmanagement. The open-ended comments confirmed that in a number of cases,raters were clearly selecting the less-qualified applicant because she was femaleand was expected to be more successful in a female job. It seems that the lack offit or inconsistency between gender type of the job and gender of the applicant is abasis for discrimination against males in female jobs.JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997



20/25


21/25


Auster, 1987). Perhaps being the more appropriate gender for the job increasedthe worth of the female applicant. Our results certainly showed no evidence thatwomen would receive lower salaries when selected as a manager in a traditionallyfemale job, even when a lower salary could have been justified on the basis ofqualifications. The salary results (or lack thereof) should be interpreted withcaution, however, as the ranges were quite large given that the current salarieswere specified. This may be an indication of error variance.

In terms of male and female raters, there were no differences found in selec-tion or salary allocation decisions as a function of rater gender. While this wascontrary to our predictions and to some of the earlier research, it may be an indica-tion that males and females view traditionally female jobs similarly. There was,however, a tendency for males to allocate higher salaries in general than females,though these higher salaries did not favor male or female applicants. This mayreflect their higher salary expectations (cf. Jackson & Grabski, 1988).

The implications from this study suggest that we are, in fact, faced with thepossibility of another ceiling or bias that may keep males from enteringmanagement positions in female arenas. Similar to females applying for malejobs, males also seem to suffer somewhat when applying for female jobs due toperceptions of a lack of fit because of their gender. Perhaps one remedy for thisis training. Currently, most of the EEO and diversity training focuses directly orindirectly on historical biases that have been levied against women and minorities.If the results of this study generalize to the selection decisions made in themanagement ranks, males may also confront gender bias in decision making. Andthe frequency of this bias may increase as more women enter the work force andbegin to predominate in numbers in more occupations. Like the complaints wehave heard from women and minorities, males also may be undervalued due totheir gender. The degree to which this bias operates would be of interest to test infuture research. For example, would evaluators be even more likely to select aless-qualified female over a qualified male for a female job if the position werenon-managerial? These and other questions pertinent to profemale bias could bethe subjects of future studies.Acknowledgment: The authors thank Susan Pyle and Kathryn Blocher for theirassistance in conducting this study, and David Atwater, Cheri Ostroff, JosephRyan, David Waldman, and Ella Van Fleet for their helpful comments on thismanuscript.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


22/25


AppendixSummary of Z-Tests for Testing Hypotheses 1 through 4

Z Test SigHypothesis 1.1. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selecting femalefirst when Applicant Gender UnknownContrast-Male versus Female Raters2. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selecting femalefirst when Applicant Gender KnownContrast-Male versus Female Raters3. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selecting female

first when Applicant and Subordinates Genders KnownContrast-Male versus Female RatersHypothesis 2AI. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Deans jobContrast-Applicant Gender Unknown versus Applicant GenderKnown2. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Deans jobContrast-Applicant Gender Unknown versus both Applicant and

Subordinates Genders KnownHypothesis 2B1. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Coordinators jobContrast-Applicant Gender Unknown versus Applicant Gender Known2. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selecting

female first for Coordinators jobContrast-Applicant Gender Unknown versus both Applicant andSubordinates Genders KnownHypothesis 2C1. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first when Applicant Gender is KnownContrast-Dean versus Coordinator2. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first when both Applicant and Subordinate Genders KnownContrast-Dean versus CoordinatorHypothesis 31. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Deans job

ns.

ns.

ns.

p < .0.5

p < .05

p < .05

p < .05

n.s

n.s.

Contrast-Applicant Gender Known versus both Applicant andSubordinates Genders Known ns.

(continued)

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 23 NO. 5 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


23/25

624 LEANNE E. ATWATER AND DAVID D. VAN FLEE7

Appendix (Continued)

2. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Coordinators jobContrast-Applicant Gender Known versus both Applicant and

Subordinates Genders KnownHypothesis 41. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Deans jobContrast-Rater with Management Experience versus No Experience2. Dependent Variable-Proportion of subjects selectingfemale first for Coordinators job.

n.s

p < .05

Contrast-Rater with Management Experience versus No Experience n.s

NotesTwenty-eight subjects did not indicate their gender and twenty-two did not complete the question regardingmanagement experience.We obtained the male to female faculty ratios for 20 schools of Social Work in the U.S. The proportions 01women ranged from 41% for faculty only to 93% when faculty and staff were considered. We. therefore.concluded that this scenario was acceptable.These materials were reviewed by three independent raters and the most qualified applicants were easily iden-tlfied. as were those who were under-qualifiedFollowing the suggestions of Fromkin and Streufert (1976) and Fisher (19X4), three subjects (less than 5%)were dropped from the analyses presented here hince they selected one of the much less qualified applicantsin the Applicant Gender Known or Applicants and Subordinates Genders Known conditions as either theirfirst or second choice. These choices were used as distractions and were not pertinent to the purpose of thestudy. However. all analyses were conducted with and without these three cases. Their omission did not signif-icantly affect the results or conclusions reached.At the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we ran a follow-up study to assess whether evaluators assumedapplicants were female (because the job was female), even when the gender was not given. We administereda simple post-survey which was identical to the original set of materials for the Dean and Coordinator, whenno applicant names were given. SubJects were simply asked to review the materials in the packets and tell usabout their assumptions of gender of applicants. Twenty-five subjects completed the Deans survey and 26completed the Coordinators survey. For both posltions, over 60 percent replied that they did not think aboutwhether the applicants were male or female. Less than 5% for each position assumed most or all of the appli-cants were female. On the basis of these post-test results, we feel confident that the subjects in our study werenot making female gender attributions about applicants when that information was not given.We tested to assess whether the effect for management experience was an artifact of age. The sample wasbroken into two groups-those 30 and over and those under 30. There was no significant difference in theproportion of raters who selected the female as a function of age.We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that we test for interaction effects.

ReferencesBaker, B., Slonaker, W.M. & Wendt, A.C. (1994). Employment discrimination: Another challenge for the prolect

manager. Project Management Jourml, 25(4): 22-25.Beggs, .I. & Doolittle, D. (1993). Perceptions now and then of occupational sex typing: A replication of Shinars197.5 study. Journnl ofApplied Social Ps~choloRy. 23: 1435-1453.Belier, A.H. (1985). Changes in the sex composition of U.S. occupations, 1960-1981. Journal of HumanResources, 20(2): 235-250.Bernardin, H. & Beatty, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston, MA:Kent.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997at Universitet I Oslo on December 14, 2009http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


24/25


Bernsten V., Hakel, M. & Harlan. A. 1975). he college student as intervlewec A threat to generalirability?Jorrnml ofA/ ird Psychology. 60: 266-268.

Blau, F. & Ferber, M. (1987). Discnminatmn-empirical evidence from the Umted States. American Eumornic~Rrvievv. 77: 3 166320.

(Ru.sirze.~sWeek. July 3 1.1995.)Cash, T., Gillen, B. & Burns, D. Y77). Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision-making. J~urnu/ofA/l/ied P.tyho/o,qv, 62: 30 1-311.

Cohen, S. & Bunker, K. I 975). Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiters hiring decisions. ./our& ofApplied Psycholog\. 60: S66& 573.

Cotter, D.. DeFiore. J., Hermsen, J., Kowalewski, B. Kr Vanneman. R. C995). Occupational gender desegregationin the IYXOs. War-k cmd Occu/~u~ion.~. 22( I ): 3-2

Dalton, D. & Keaner. I. (1993). Cracks in the glahs: The silent competence of women. u.unc.sc H~~ri:on.\. 36: 6-1 I.Deaux, K. C984). From individual differences to social categories: Analy\i\ of a decade\ research on gender.

A/m,~icu/~ Pyho/o


25/25


Mullins, T. (1982). Interviewer decisions as a function of applicant race, applicant quality, and interviewer prej-udice. Personnel Psychology, 35: 163-114.

Nelson-Horchler, J. (1991). The best man for the job is a man. Indust~ Week, 240: 50-52.Nilson, L. (1976). The occupational and sex-related components of social standing. Sociology and Social

Research, 60: 328-336.Nivea, V. & Gutek, B. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.ONeill, J. (1992). A flexible work force: Opportunities for women. Journal ofLabor Research, IS(l): 67-72.Pazy, A. (1986). The persistence of pro-male bias despite identical information regarding causes of success. Oqa-

ni;ational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 38: 366371.Pazy, A. (1992). Sex-linked bias in promotion decisions-the role of candidates career relevance and respondents

prior experience. Psychology of Women Quarter/y, 16: 209-228.Pfeffer, J. (1990). Gender-based wage differences: The effects of organizational context. Work and Occupations,

17: 55-18.Pfeffer, J. & Davis-Blake, A. (1987). The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The case of college

admmistrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: l-24.Powell, G. & Butterfield, D. (1994). Investigating the glass ceiling phenomenon: An empirical study of actual

promotions to top management. Academy ofManagement Journtrl, 37: 68-86.Reskin. B. & Ross. C. (1992). Jobs, authority, and earnings among managers. Work and Occupations. 19: 342-365.Rose, G. & Andiappan. P. (1978). Sex effects on managerial hiring decisions. Academy ofManagement Journal,

21: 104-l 12.Rosen, B. & Jerdee, T. (1974). Influence of sex-role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journtrl of Applied

Ps~chologv 59: 9-14.Rosen, B., Rynes, S. & Mahoney, T. (1983). Compensation. jobs and gender. Harvard Business Review, 61: 170-

172.Rosenstein. J. & Hitt, M. (1986). Experimental research on race and sex discrimination: The record and prospects.

Journal ofOccupationalehavior, 7: 215-226.Sandler, B. & Hall. M. (1986). The campus climate revisited: chil/Ffor wwnen faculw, administrators, and grad-

uate students. Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status of Education of Women, Association of AmericanColleges.

Stevens, G. & DeNisi. A. (1980). Women as managers: Attitudes and attributions for performance by men andwomen. Acudemv o anagement Journal, 23: 355-361.Stover, D. (1994). The horizontal distribution of female managers within organizations. Work and Occupatwns.

21(4): 385402.Taber, C. (1992). From a glass slipper to a glass house. American Advertising. Fall: 20-22.Terborg, J. & Ilgen, D. (1975). A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupa-

tions. Organi&onal Behavior and Human Pe@rmtmce. 13: 352-376.Tosi, H. & Einbender, S. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research:

A meta-analysis. Academy ofManqement Journal. 28: 712-723.Tam, A. & OReilly. C. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in

superior-subordinate dyads. Academy ofManagement Journal, 32: 402423.Van Fleet. D. & Saurage, J. (1984). Recent research on women in management. Akron Business and Economic

Review, Summer: 15-24.Wharton, A. & Baron. J. (1987). So happy together?: The impact of gender segregation on men at work. AmericanSociological Review. 52: 574-581.Williams. C. 1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the female professions. Social Prob-

/ems, 39(3): 253-267.

a nother ceilling_can males compete for traditionally female jobs_atwater, l. e. and van fleet, d....

Documents