Temperaments Between Men and Women

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Abstract

The focus of this research will be the examination of the effects of male and female temperaments on the extents of frustration both sexes experience while dealing with certain long-lasting activities like the waiting process at a busy intersection. The scholarly literature on the topic of temperament development and gender inequalities of modern society will be examined. The method of direct observation will be used in the research itself, as the researcher will place him/herself in a group of people at a busy intersection to observe and record the ways in which male and female frustration is manifested. The results of the research will be presented and discussed providing the implications for further study in the area of temperament differences.

Introduction

The study of differences in the male and female temperaments is rather significant as far as the modern society experiences the lack of understanding the inter-gender differences and displays such signs of gender discrimination as lower educational and employment opportunities for women, prejudiced social opinion against them, etc (Boyce & Herd, 2003). Accordingly, the current study will contribute to the inter-gender understanding and will provide for the further development of gender equality in the human society. Moreover, if properly carried out, this study will provide for the better understanding of ordinary human beings in their daily communication and cooperation.

Scholars take their time to examine this topic. In more detail, such authors as Bing (1999) inquire about the purely physiological and biological aspects of the socially adopted gender inequality. According to Bing (1999), the popular public believe that male brains are larger than female ones has led to the misperception of women as the ones to be excluded from doing such traditionally male jobs as politics, social work, etc (Bing, 1999). Further on, Walker, Berthelsen, & Irving (2001) study the topic of temperament formation in young children and influence of their temperaments on their peer acceptance. Gender perspective is examined by these authors who conclude that females are less active in the socialization, while males are more patient and persistent (Walker, Berthelsen, & Irving, 2001). Kasen, Cohen, Brook, & Hartmark (1996) argue about the huge role played by family environment and psychological traumas received by children upon their temperament formation and further socialization (Kasen, Cohen, Brook, & Hartmark, 1996). Boyce & Herd (2003), Mcglashan, Wright & Mccormick (1995), and Whisenant (2003) consider the social aspects of the study topic examining the ways in which women are less fortunate in employment, education, and even military service because of the public stereotyping of their temperament peculiarities and biological differences (Boyce & Herd, 2003; Mcglashan, Wright & Mccormick, 1995; Whisenant, 2003). However, the topic of frustration males and females experience during waiting has not yet been studied substantially enough. The purpose of this study will be to fill in this gap and provide an account of frustration rates in men and women busy with waiting. The hypothesis of the study is as follows:

Women experience less frustration while waiting due to the peculiarities of their psychology which allows them to be less focused on waiting and reduce the stress by this. On the other hand, men are more frustrated as their focus on current business makes them nervous about the circumstances preventing them from the action.

Method

This study will involve two major methods of research. The first method used for the conduct of this study will be standing on a busy intersection and observing the reactions of men and women to the necessity to wait for a certain amount of time. Accordingly, it is rather difficult to exactly identify the number and any other characteristics of the study participants. What can be stated more or less exactly is that the sample of the study will encompass males and females of the adult age groups that can be observed on the roads during their working days. Drawing from the nature of the study, it will be impossible to examine the participants individually (Mitchell and Jolley, 2006). However, the establishment of groups for their examination will also prove impossible in real-life situations. As a result, the study will be carried out with the help of the observation of the spontaneously formed group of people. The design of the study will also be determined by its real-life nature, as it will be impossible to successfully use any laboratory research during the observation of a group of people who, in addition, will not know that they are observed. As for the special apparatus for the study (Mitchell and Jolley, 2006), it will consist of only recording, either in the written form or with the help of audiotape, the reactions of male and female study participants to any challenging situations on the busy intersection chosen as the site of the study.

On the whole, the procedure anticipated for use in the study will begin with choosing the intersection with heavy people and car traffic. An important aspect in this choice will be the result of the prior observation according to which the intersection with the most balanced average rates of male and female participants will be chosen. The next step will be finding a proper position for the researcher (Mitchell and Jolley, 2006), who can either be in a car among the cars of the study participants, or a pavement from which the most relevant data can be obtained and timely recorded. Then, the very procedure of the study will be carried out during the pick hours of the early morning when the majority of people are heading for work or study. Finally, the results of the research will be analyzed and synthesized in order to provide an argumentative discussion and implications for the further study of this area (Mitchell and Jolley, 2006).

Finally, the second method used will be the integrated application of the Likert Rating Scales together with the consideration of a proposed study scenario as rated by the two female and two male student groups (30 persons each). The first step in applying this method will be recruiting 120 volunteers (60 males and 60 females to ensure the objective and equal representation of both genders) from the local universities or schools through internet and newspaper advertising. The next step in the research procedure will be presenting the study scenario to the volunteer assessors in order for them to grade it and express their own ideas, if any, on the information they can obtain from the study and the results of its assessment. The point here will be to offer one male and one female group to assess the male character of the study scenario, while the resting groups will be asked to assess the performance and frustration levels of the female character. After the groups are assigned their tasks, it will be necessary to explain to the volunteers the principle according to which Likert Rating Scales work.

Finally, the synthesis of the assessment results and making respective conclusions will be the closing stages of the research procedure. These stages will be necessary to see the differences, if any, in the assessment given by the male volunteers to the female study character, and vice versa. To make the research as complete as possible the assessments of the male volunteers of the actions and frustration level of the male character will also be considered, as well as the same factors relating to the female assessment of the female frustration level.

Results

As for the study results, they will be assessed according to the nature of participants’ responses and according to the approximate degree of indignation or calmness as observed in the recorded data. The lexical analysis of the responses will also be of great help as it will provide the study with the implications of the statements made by the participants as viewed from the nature of lexical units and intonations used. In accordance with these assessment criteria, the results will provide the study with certain information necessary to either prove or reject the hypothesis formulated and outline the directions for further study (Mitchell and Jolley, 2006).

Further on, the results of the Likert Rating Scales assessments will be considered rather specifically to ensure as small a sampling error as possible. First of all, the Likert Rating Scales are divided into two parts, one being the reflection of frustration rates and another being the display of the responsibility levels the study characters of two genders manifested while being in a frustrating situation. Both scales offer a range from 0 to 5. In the first scale, the smallest figure is equivalent to the absence of frustration, while the highest result evidences the extreme frustration level. The second scale uses the same range, with 0 showing no responsibility of the subject, while 5 assesses him or her as “very responsible”.

Thus, using the results of these assessment scales, it will be possible to calculate the average figure reflecting the male assessment of the female frustration and responsibility, as well as the female assessment of the male ones. These average figures will allow the researcher to have at least an approximate picture of the frustration levels typical of both genders, as well as of attitudes men and women have towards the psychological abilities of each other.

Discussion

Accordingly, if the study results are as predicted, it will be possible to confirm the research hypothesis and develop further research on this topic to the study of reasons for such temperament differences and test the same research design on different settings and using different variables besides frustration rates. However, the study design chosen is limited in its scope and in the credibility of its results as the certain number of participants examined will not allow making too generalized conclusions. In other words, what will turn to be true for this group of people will not necessarily be true for another or a larger one. That is why, further research will be necessary to provide adequate data eligible for generalization (Mitchell and Jolley, 2006).

References

Bing, J. (1999). Brain Sex: How the Media Report and Distort Brain Research [*]. Women and Language, 22(2), 4.

Boyce, L. A., & Herd, A. M. (2003). The Relationship between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military Leadership Characteristics. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 49(7-8), 365+.

Kasen, S., Cohen, P., Brook, J. S., & Hartmark, C. (1996). A Multiple-Risk Interaction Model: Effects of Temperament and Divorce on Psychiatric Disorders in Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24(2), 121+.

Mcglashan, K. E., Wright, P. M., & Mccormick, B. (1995). Preferential Selection and Stereotypes: Effects on Evaluation of Female Leader Performance, Subordinate Goal Commitment, and Task Performance. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 33(9-10), 669+.

Mitchell, M. L. and Jolley, J. M. (2006). Research and Design Explained (6th ed.), Wadsworth Publishing.

Walker, S., Berthelsen, D., & Irving, K. (2001). Temperament and Peer Acceptance in Early Childhood: Sex and Social Status Differences. Child Study Journal, 31(3), 177+.

Whisenant, W. A. (2003). How Women Have Fared as Interscholastic Athletic Administrators since the Passage of Title IX. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 49(3-4), 179+.

Preferential selection and stereotypes: effects on evaluation offemale leader performance, subordinate goal commitment, and task performance

Preferential treatment of minority group members continues to be a controversial yet sometimes necessary ingredient in equal opportunity employment. Managers recognize the increasing diversity of the workforce and the need to fully utilize its members. Furthermore, fulfillment of equal opportunity employment requirements and use of voluntary affirmative action plans have become essential, if not obligatory, elements of everyday human resource procedures. The growing number of women represented in the workplace, and in managerial positions in particular, have made it essential to understand possible hindrances to women’s organizational effectiveness in response to preferential employment practices. Such practices have been shown to have unintended negative effects, both on individuals’ perceptions (of self and others) and behaviors. These perceptions and behaviors can often translate into negative consequences for the organization, as will be explored in this paper.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether preferential treatment has effects on subordinate attitudes and behaviors in a task setting, e.g. in evaluations of their leaders, commitment toward leader-assigned goals, and in subordinate task performance. In addition, the effects of stereotypical views toward women as managers in leader evaluations, subordinate commitment and subordinate performance are explored.

Preferential Treatment

Previous preferential treatment studies have concentrated on either individual self-perceptions or perceptions of others who have been treated in a preferential manner. In many empirical studies, preferential selection has been shown to negatively affect individuals in self-reports of organizational commitment, role stress, satisfaction, self-perceptions and evaluations, and task selection (Chacko, 1982; Heilman and Herlihy, 1984; Heilman, Lucas, and Kaplow, 1990; Heilman, Rivero, and Brett, 1991; and Heilman, Simon, and Repper, 1987). Females selected preferentially have evidenced more negative self-views than in merit-based situations. Preferential treatment has resulted in women’s lower self-evaluations of performance, leadership ability, and future desire to lead (Heilman et al., 1987).

Individuals may also differ in their perceptions of others who have been treated preferentially and of the organization that acted preferentially. The amount of discrepancy in merit between candidates when a less qualified minority candidate is preferentially selected has been shown to affect the level of perceived injustice felt by the more qualified majority candidate (Singer and Singer, 1991). Perceived fairness of the selection process may also negatively influence beneficiaries of affirmative action in their attraction to certain organizations (Nacoste, 1987) and in reactions to individuals (e.g. job applicants) similar to themselves (Heilman, Kaplow, Amato, and Stathatos, 1993). These findings highlight the paradox of affirmative action programs – they may often harm the very individuals that they are designed to help.

Leader Evaluations

The evaluation of female leaders may also be detrimentally affected by their preferential appointment. Jacobson and Koch (1977) conducted a laboratory experiment involving the preferential, chance, or merit selection of a female confederate as leader in a dyad with a male subject. They found that the more equitable the method of leader selection, the more positively the subject rated the confederate’s performance and the more credit she received for success.

A leader’s source of authority, or legitimacy, may predict evaluation of his or her leadership effectiveness (Read, 1974; House and Baetz, 1979). A follower must not only perceive that a behavior is an influence attempt – he or she must also view the attempt as acceptable. If the influence attempt is not accepted by the perceiver, then the leader’s authority is not legitimized.

Goal Commitment and Subordinate Performance

One important component of leader legitimacy is real or perceived leader competence (Read, 1974). This component may prove perplexing in a preferential treatment situation. A preferentially selected leader may be viewed as less legitimate because competence is not perceived as a basis for selection. The leader’s task competence may truly be adequate, but this competence has not been validated in the selection process. Subordinates may perceive the leader as less qualified, and subordinate commitment to the leader may suffer.

Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance to the extent that subordinates accept leader assigned goals (Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 1981). Goal acceptance, however, is necessary but not sufficient for goal commitment. Goal commitment (i.e. the individual feeling bound to achieving the goal), is necessary for goal setting to be an effective motivational tool and is critical in predicting performance (Hollenbeck and Klein, 1987). We would expect goal commitment to be reduced in the case of preferential leader selection, as a leader’s legitimate authority is undermined. Lessened goal commitment by subordinates may translate into ensuing performance decrements. The extent to which subordinates perceive leaders to be legitimate will be positively related to the subordinates’ commitment to goals assigned by that leader. In turn, goals will most likely improve performance only to the extent that subordinates are committed to such goals.

From the preceding discussion on preferential treatment, we expect to find that preferential selection of a female into a leadership position will lessen subordinates’ feelings of commitment to both the female leader and to goals assigned by that leader, translating into a decrease in performance level. We have seen that preferential treatment negatively affects many individual perceptions, regardless of gender. We would therefore predict no significant difference in reaction based on gender of the subordinate. We thus expect to see a negative impact of preferential selection on subordinate evaluations of the female leaders, regardless of subordinate gender. Additionally, we expect to find that subordinate commitment to goals assigned by the female leader will be lessened in a preferential treatment situation. Last, we expect to observe lower task performance by subordinates because of lessened commitment to the leader-assigned goals. These proposed relationships are depicted in Fig. 1. Our formal hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis one: Subjects will assign lower scores of leader effectiveness to a preferentially selected female leader than will subjects in a merit selection condition.
Hypothesis two: Subjects will exhibit significantly lower levels of commitment to goals assigned by a preferentially selected female leader than will subjects in a merit selection condition.
Hypothesis three: Subjects whose leaders have been selected preferentially will exhibit lower task performance than that of subjects in a merit selection condition.

Stereotypical Beliefs About Women as Managers

An additional complication in the affirmative action arena stems from gender-based views in the workplace and the effects of these views on evaluation of female employees. Most managerial jobs have been attributed masculine characteristics, i.e. they have been male “sex-typed” or gender-typed. Congruence of job and gender characteristics in gender-typed occupations stems from the differences in specific personality traits assigned to men and women and the judged appropriateness of those characteristics on the job. For example, assertiveness is viewed more as a male trait, while passivity is seen as a female trait (Locksley, Borgida, Brekke and Hepburn, 1980). These attribute differences have led to a widespread notion that men may possess more of those attributes viewed as necessary to succeed at work (Heilman, 1984).

It has been found in separate studies of male and female middle managers that successful managers are perceived to possess characteristics, attitudes and temperaments more commonly ascribed to men in general than to women in general (Heilman, Block, Martell and Simon, 1989; Schein, 1973, 1975). Men are perceived as more aggressive and independent. Women are viewed as more tactful, gentler and quieter. Congruence between gender-typed jobs and gender-typed tasks has been shown to affect performance ratings (Barnes-Farrell, L’Heureux-Barrett, and Conway, 1991; Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky, 1992; Stoppard and Kalin, 1983). In general, men have been found to receive more favorable evaluations than women (Deaux and Emswiller, 1974; Garland and Price, 1977; Nieva and Gutek, 1981). Deaux and Emswiller (1974) found that performance by a male on a “masculine” task was attributed to skill, while an equal performance by a female was attributed to luck. The reverse did not hold for a feminine-related task.

Garland and Price (1977) measured male undergraduates subjects’ attitudes toward women in management, using Peters’ et al.’s Women as Managers Scale (WAMS; Peters, Terborg and Taynor, 1974, as cited in Garland and Price, 1977). They found that the description of success for a female manager was attributed to external factors (i.e. luck) by those subjects with low WAMS scores (representing more traditional views of women). Likewise, those subjects with high WAMS scores (i.e. less traditional attitudes toward women managers) attributed success to the woman’s internal factors (ability and effort). The WAMS scale is essentially measuring an individual’s stereotypical views about women’s ability to be effective managers.

A second aim of this study was to explore the role of stereotypical beliefs on reactions to a female leader and the goals she assigns. Individuals with more traditional stereotypical beliefs about females typically score lower on the WAMS scale. We posit that higher levels of stereotypical beliefs regarding the female role in the workplace (i.e. lower WAMS scores) will negatively impact subordinates’ evaluation of female leaders and commitment toward goals assigned by these leaders, as well as negatively affecting subordinate performance. Proposed relationships are again depicted in Fig. 1. From the preceding discussion, our next hypotheses are:

Hypothesis four: Subjects’ scores on the WAMS measure will be positively related to their evaluations of the leader’s effectiveness.
Hypothesis five: Subjects’ scores on the WAMS measure will be positively related to commitment to leader-assigned goals.
Hypothesis six: Subjects’ scores on the WAMS measure will be positively related to subordinates’ task performance.

In addition, it is possible that interactions exist between our preferential treatment variable and WAMS scores. A subject with more traditional stereotypical views of the female role, for instance, might feel more negatively toward the use of preferential treatment than would a subject with less traditional views. We would predict that lower WAMS scores interacting with preferential treatment would have an even more negative effect on goal commitment, leader evaluations, and performance. Therefore, we will also explore whether such interactions are significant.

Method

Subjects

Our sample consisted of 135 undergraduate students enrolled in a junior level management class during the Fall 1992 semester at Texas A&M University. The students participated in the laboratory experiment for extra credit points. Participants included 69 males and 66 females. Although race/ethnicity information was not collected, the class from which the sample was taken is typically homogeneous – approximately 98% white.

Task

Students worked on a class scheduling task in which they were to develop non-redundant schedules involving five courses offered at various times. They completed both a ten minute practice trial and a fifteen minute experimental trial. This type of task is both highly familiar and has high face validity to students (Earley and Kanfer, 1985) and is often used in goal-setting studies.

Variables

Manipulated Variable

Preferential Treatment. Preferential treatment was operationalized after administration of two tests purported to assess leadership ability. The experimental manipulation took place as the lab instructor collected the two tests for scoring. While the subjects completed an additional scale (a self-esteem measure), the lab instructor enacted one of two scenarios (determined at random by a coin toss prior to the laboratory session). In the merit selection condition, the instructor appeared to score the two measures and base leader selection on the highest test scores. The actual statement used by the instructor in this scenario was, “As stated before, the two tests you took were used to predict leadership effectiveness. Based upon the results of the tests, will be in the leadership position.”

In the preferential selection condition, the instructor did not attempt to score the tests. Instead, the instructor placed the tests aside and communicated that, “Although we wanted to place people in the leadership role based on ability we are experiencing a shortage of female leaders. Therefore, will be placed in the leadership role.” As noted, in both cases the female confederate was chosen as group leader.

The laboratory instructor was one of two graduate students, one male and one female, who conducted sessions on a relatively even basis. Four female undergraduate students alternated as the confederate. These students were familiarized with the lab scenario before the sessions took place, and they followed the same set script regardless of the session being preferential treatment or ability in nature. The operationalization of preferential treatment that was used is exactly like that used by Heilman and her colleagues (e.g. 1984, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993) in which gender is used as a decision-making characteristic instead of ability.

Measured Variables

Goal: The leader-assigned goal was operationalized as twice the amount of schedules that each student completed in his or her ten-minute practice trial, to be completed in the fifteen minute experimental trial. The set goal level should have been realistic to students as it was specifically based on initial performance in the trial. This goal was chosen so as to be perceived as both specific and difficult to the subjects, factors which have been established as leading to higher motivation and subsequent performance (Locke et al., 1981.)

WAMS: The Women as Managers Scale devised by Peters, Terborg and Taynor, 1974 (Beere, 1990) is a twenty-one item scale that assigns scores on a numerical scale of one to seven, representing traditional to non-traditional stereotypes of women in business organizations held by the test subjects. The psychometric properties of WAMS have been demonstrated (Garland and Price, 1977). Coefficient alpha for the WAMS in our study was 0.92.

Leader Effectiveness: The scale used by the students to evaluate the female leader included five items with a seven-point Likert scale format. An example item is, “The leader was clear in providing instructions in how to perform the task.” Coefficient alpha for this scale in our study was 0.75.

Goal Commitment: The goal commitment scale used seven items from the scale developed by Hollenbeck, Williams and Klein (1989), measuring subjects’ commitment to the goal assigned by the female leader. The construct validity of this measure has been demonstrated (Hollenbeck, Klein, O’Leary, and Wright, 1989). Coefficient alpha in our study was 0.87.

Performance: Performance was operationalized as the number of schedules completed by the subjects in the fifteen minute experimental trial.

Procedure

Students took part in a laboratory experiment lasting approximately one and one half hours. Three to five students were involved in each session, along with a female confederate posing as a fellow student. Students had signed up for laboratory times on posted sign-up sheets, resulting in a varying mix of male and female subjects in each of the sessions. The session began with an introduction by the lab instructor. Bookkeeping duties such as registering attendance, obtaining subject consent, and obtaining demographic data were performed. Next, two tests were administered to the subjects and the confederate, purportedly to determine selection of a group leader to guide the group in a simple class scheduling task. The first test was the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which assesses general cognitive ability. The second test administered was the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire, which measures two facets of leadership (consideration and structure). Both of these tests have undergone extensive testing and are commercially available for research. Neither test was actually used to choose the leader as we utilized a confederate, although in the merit condition the lab instructor acted as though the tests were scored and used as the decision factor. In both the preferential selection and merit conditions, the confederate was then asked to lead the rest of the session.

The leader’s task was to guide the group through a class scheduling task. The task consisted of students being asked to write out sample schedules from a master schedule list, working independently. A ten minute trial scheduling task occurred, after which the leader checked on subjects’ progress and assigned individual goals for the actual fifteen minute class scheduling task. The goal was standard across laboratory sessions – twice the amount achieved on the ten minute trial run, to be accomplished in the fifteen minute actual run. Following goal assignment, the subjects were asked to complete measures of goal commitment.

Following the actual fifteen minute class scheduling task, the confederate was allowed to leave. Subjects were then asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the confederate in the leader role. The WAMS scale was also administered, followed by a manipulation check to observe whether the preferential selection condition was perceived as such by the subjects. Last, subjects were debriefed and were told that a full explanation of the study would be made available at its conclusion.

Results

Manipulation Check

Three items were included to check the preferential treatment manipulation (“The leader was chosen based on his/her performance on the leadership tests,” “The leader was chosen for non-job related reasons,” “The leader was chosen because of his/her sex”). The manipulation was checked by asking the subjects to rate these items from one (“strongly disagree”) to five (“strongly agree”). Correlations for the first and third items with the preferential treatment condition were highly significant (-.55, p [less than].01 and.54, p [less than].01) but insignificant for the second item (.15, n.s.). It is possible that the students were confused by the inclusion of the term “nonjob” when the task was only a laboratory simulation. We felt that the significance of the other two items lent sufficient evidence that the manipulation worked.

Tests of Hypotheses

The preferential/merit selection manipulation was dummy-coded “1” for preferential treatment and “0” for merit selection for purposes of the analysis. The leader-assigned goal level was coded as twice the number of trial schedules completed. The measure of goal commitment was coded as a value ranging from one to five. Performance was coded as the number of schedules completed by each student in the actual fifteen minute exercise. Each student’s evaluation of leader performance was coded using the one to seven scale, as was the level of stereotypical beliefs as measured by the WAMS scale. Correlations among the variables as well as means and standard deviations are shown in Table I.

Data were analyzed using hierarchical multiple regression.(1) Results of these regression analyses are summarized in Tables II, III and IV. Three different regression equations were completed. Equation one regressed leader effectiveness on WAMS scores in the first step, preferential treatment in the second, and a WAMS/preferential treatment interaction last. Equation two regressed goal commitment on leader-assigned goal level in the first step, WAMS scores in the second step, preferential treatment in the third, and a WAMS/preferential treatment interaction in the fourth step. Equation three regressed subordinate performance (number of schedules completed in the experimental trial) on leader-assigned goal level in the first step, goal commitment in the second, WAMS scores in the third step, preferential treatment in the fourth, and a WAMS/preferential treatment interaction last.

We did find significant two-tailed bivariate correlations between gender and the WAMS scale (-.51, p [less than].01), gender and goal commitment (-.20, p [less than].05), and gender and number of schedules completed (-.19, p [less than].05). We also found a significant one-tailed correlation between leader performance and gender (-.16, p [less than].05). The large association between gender and the WAMS scale appears to be driving these relationships, because WAMS scores are also significantly correlated with each of the above variables except for number of schedules completed. Controlling for WAMS, we ran partial correlations for gender, goal commitment, number of schedules, and leader effectiveness, and found that gender no longer had significant relationships with any of the other variables. We therefore felt comfortable with dropping gender from further analysis.

Hypothesis one stated that subjects would assign lower scores of leader effectiveness to a preferentially selected female leader than subjects in the merit selection condition. This was tested in step two of equation one, which showed that only 0.5% incremental variance in leader effectiveness scores was explained by the preferential treatment condition, which was non-significant. Thus, hypothesis one was rejected.
Hypothesis two stated that subjects would exhibit significantly lower levels of commitment to goals assigned by a preferentially selected female leader than subjects in the merit selection condition. This hypothesis was [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE I OMITTED] tested in step three of equation two. The incremental variance explained was 0.04% (n.s.), thus rejecting hypothesis two.

Table II. Hierarchical Regression Analysis – Equation:

Hierarchical Regression Analysis - Equation

Hypothesis three stated that subjects whose leaders had been selected preferentially would exhibit lower task performance than subjects in the merit selection condition. This was tested in step four of equation three, with an incremental 1.4% of variance explained (p =.09). Thus, hypothesis three was marginally supported. Hypothesis four stated that subjects’ scores on the WAMS measure would be positively related to their evaluations of female leader effectiveness. This hypothesis was tested in step one of equation one, with variance explained equaling 6% (p [less than].01). Thus, hypothesis four was strongly supported.

Table III. Hierarchical Regression Analysis – Equation Two(a)

Hierarchical Regression Analysis - Equation Two

Table IV. Hierarchical Regression Analysis – Equation Three(a)

Hierarchical Regression Analysis - Equation Three

Hypothesis five stated that subjects’ scores on the WAMS measure would be positively related to commitment to leader-assigned goals. This was tested in step two of equation two. Incremental variance explained was 7.5% (p [less than].001), thus strongly supporting hypothesis five. Hypothesis six stated that subjects’ scores on the WAMS measure would be positively related to subordinates’ task performance. This hypothesis was tested in step three of equation three. The incremental variance explained was only 0.05% (n.s.), thus rejecting hypothesis six.

In addition, we examined in an exploratory fashion interactions between WAMS scores and preferential treatment. No interaction terms were significant in our regression equations.

Discussion

The present study examined the role of preferential treatment and stereotypical beliefs about women as managers in determining subordinate ratings of female leader effectiveness, commitment toward leader-assigned goals, and effects on subsequent subordinate performance. Previous evidence has established effects of preferential treatment on self-perceptions (e.g. Heilman et al., 1987) and some evidence exists that it may affect other organizational members’ perceptions and behaviors toward others (Heilman et al., 1993). In this study, however, only marginal effects of preferential treatment were demonstrated.

There are several possible explanations for our lack of preferential treatment effects. First, it may be that our manipulation was simply not strong enough to make a difference. In essence, the students’ instrumentality of being selected as the task leader may have been extremely low or even non-existent. Thus, a lack of reaction to the preferential treatment manipulation would not be surprising.

A second explanation involves the increasing trend toward “diversity” in both academic and business settings. It could be that the subjects viewed diversity as a legitimate goal, and thus preferential selection (e.g. using gender as a criterion) was seen as a legitimate means of selecting the leader. Given that students are consistently exposed to the diversity issue, it is possible that our subjects have internalized this goal as being completely legitimate. Obviously, this is a topic for future research.

The most interesting finding in this study is that WAMS scores were more influential than the presence of preferential selection on subordinate evaluations of female leaders as well as their commitment to the leader assigned goals. The actual relationships found are pictured in Fig. 2. This has intriguing implications for organizations. If stereotypical beliefs influence such activities as leader evaluations and subordinate goal commitment, what may the effects be on other, more fundamental attitudes toward female managers such as perceived credibility? If the same stereotypical biases are found to affect supervisors’ judgment of female subordinate capabilities, for example, it is possible that women’s opportunities could be significantly curtailed. As reflected in Fig. 2, future research may even find that stereotypes may work indirectly through subordinate evaluations of female leaders to influence goal commitment and subsequent task performance. Perhaps stereotypes present a much larger, more pervasive problem for females in the workplace than that of preferential treatment policies.
This stereotyping effect could be detrimental to women’s self-esteem, much like the effects of preferential treatment. Although we did not find any preferential treatment effects in this study, prior evidence suggests that preferential selection may undermine a woman’s feelings of self-efficacy because she does not receive positive ability feedback (Bandura, 1977, 1982; Heilman, et al., 1990). This can be especially detrimental in male-dominated careers, such as management, where women have been shown to exhibit less self-confidence and to attribute success to external rather than internal factors (Lenney, 1981; McMahan, 1982). The effects of negative stereotypes may be similar, in that women may not receive positive information or positive outcomes if they are thought to be “inappropriate” for managerial roles. Stereotypes may in fact be more detrimental to women because they tend to operate in all situations, rather than being limited to preferential treatment cases.

A danger may then exist, especially when stereotypes are used, of a spiral effect of sorts in which females’ self-efficacy perceptions are lessened, translating into their lower performance. When combined with possibilities of subordinates’ lessened commitment and lower leader evaluations, female managers’ self-worth could conceivably slide further. Thus, a downward spiral occurs, and it would become imperative to break the cycle so that women would not lose the accomplishments that they have strived so diligently for. Of course, all of this is conjecture, and future research would need to address whether such a process happens in actual organizational situations.
The results of this study also certainly suggest that negative stereotypes about females in the managerial role have a negative impact on leader performance ratings. This may be thought of as error, e.g. lower performance ratings are received because of nonjob factors. In the same line of thinking, it may be that positive stereotypes may also introduce error in the form of inflated performance ratings. This is an extremely intriguing point for future research to address.

We did not find that stereotypical views influenced subordinate task performance in a direct fashion. This is evidenced by a non-significant bivariate correlation of.16 between WAMS and schedules completed in Table I. It is possible, however, that an indirect relationship exists between the two. In our second regression model, we found that higher WAMS scores (e.g. less traditional stereotypical views) translated into higher commitment to leader-assigned goals (e.g. hypothesis five). Furthermore, in our third equation we found that higher commitment significantly led to higher subordinate task performance. Our hypotheses did not explicitly include this type of mediating relationship. It appears that stereotyping works through goal commitment to influence task performance. Further analysis of this relationship in the future is warranted.

A potential weakness of the experiment is its laboratory setting. Laboratory experiments are considered less realistic and less generalizable to the “real” world. However, such experiments allow for greater control over the experimental manipulation, thereby possibly resulting in stronger relational effects. The use of student confederates most likely weakened the impact of the preferential treatment manipulation upon subjects’ goal commitment and leader evaluations. Subjects may have perceived the confederates as less legitimate because of age proximity and other similarities to themselves. Also, the leader role in this experiment may not have been viewed as desirable, unlike actual leadership positions in organizations. Additionally, it may be that the strength of the stereotypical influences on our results stems from the more pervasive nature of those influences, i.e. in the absence of strong feelings about preferential treatment in the lab study, the students allowed their own personal attitudes toward women managers to play a larger role. Last, the short duration of the experiment does not represent well the on-going nature of organizational interactions.

Our study has implications for human resource policy. With increasing numbers of women in the workplace, the presence of glass ceilings, and the use of affirmative action, it is important to understand possible impediments that women may face in improving their positions in organizations. The possible hindrances resulting from stereotypes should not be taken lightly.

The necessity of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity ensures that women will have a place in organizational life. The demonstration of consequences to stereotypical beliefs, however, demands that we understand as much as possible the psychological processes underlying these consequences. Some evidence in our study combined with evidence of others (Heilman et al. 1987, 1993) points to some of the possible effects.

Future research should apply leader legitimization effects upon leader acceptance and evaluation, goal acceptance and goal commitment, and performance of subordinates in scenarios where women hold managerial roles. Since acceptance is critical to individuals’ commitment to goals, and since commitment theoretically leads to better performance, it is imperative that both stereotype and preferential selection effects be considered when selecting organizational leaders. This is not to say that these effects should prescribe elimination of minority promotion if such a promotion may be conceivably perceived as preferential treatment. As demonstrated by our study, this may not be the most important issue. Rather, the organization should understand individuals’ perceptions of others in these situations. The organization should seek to provide information to employees which neutralizes potential negative perceptions of women as organizational leaders. Such information may at least lessen the impact of stereotyping, and at most it may alter stereotypical views and result in a more positive environment for women in leadership positions.

Order entry of the WAMS and preferential treatment variables was arbitrary. The results do not change when variable order is changed.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Barnes-Farrell, J. L., L’Heureux-Barrett, T. J., & Conway, J. M. (1991). Impact of gender-related job features on the accurate evaluation of performance information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 23-25.

Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Chacko, T. I (1982). Women and equal employment opportunity: Some unintended effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 119-123.

Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80-85.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.

Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378-390.

Garland, H., & Price, K. H. (1977). Attitudes toward women in management and attributions for their success and failure in a managerial position. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 29-33.

Heilman, M. E. (1984). Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: The effects of applicant sex and information type on preliminary employment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 174-186.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.

Heilman, M. E., & Herlihy, J. M. (1984). Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some moderating conditions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 204-213.

Heilman, M. E., Kaplow, S. R., Amato, M. A. G., & Stathatos, P. (1993). When similarity is a liability: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on reactions to like-sex and different-sex others. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 917-927.

Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. (1990). Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 202-216.

Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 99-105.

Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212-220.

Hollenbeck, J., Klein, H., O’Leary, A., & Wright, P. (1989). An investigation of the construct validity of a self-report measure of goal commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 951-956.

Hollenbeck, J., Williams, C., & Klein, H. (1989). An empirical examination of antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 18-23.

House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Research in Organizational Behavior, I, 341-423.

Jacobson, M. B., & Koch, W. (1977). Women as leaders: Performance evaluation as a function of method of leader selection. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 149-157.

Lenney, E. (1981). What’s fine for the gander isn’t always good for the goose: Sex differences in self-confidence as a function of ability area and comparison with others. Sex Roles, 7, 905-924.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821-831.

McMahan, I. D. (1982). Expectancy of success on sex-linked tasks. Sex Roles, 8, 949-958.

Nacoste, R. W. (1987). But do they care about fairness? The dynamics of preferential treatment and minority interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 177-191.

Nieva, B., & Gutek, V. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.

Read, P. B. (1974). Source of authority and the legitimation of leadership in small groups. Sociometry, 37, 189-204.

Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100.

Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340-344.

Singer, M. E., & Singer, A. E. (1991). Justice in preferential hiring. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 797-803

Stoppard, J. M., & Kalin, R. (1983). Gender typing and social desirability of personality in person evaluation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 209-218

How womenhave fared as Interscholastic Athletic Administrators since the passage of Title IX

Title VII and Title IX legislation were both intended to provide relief to individuals who were suffering from some form of exclusion or discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any employment condition. In 1972, it was amended to expand its coverage to include government employees, educational institutions, and private employers of more than 15 persons. Title VII provided for a comprehensive prohibition on acts of employment discrimination (Anthony, Kacmar, & Perrewe, 2002), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 addressed the rights of all individuals, regardless of sex, to participate in educational programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. In effect, Title IX required that both boys and girls have equal opportunities to participate in sports and derive the benefits of participation (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education [NCWGE], 2002). With the full weight of the federal government behind these two cornerstone pieces of legislation, most individuals probably think that the inequity women had faced in athletics prior to 1972 has been eliminated. The results, more than 40 years after the passage of Title VII in 1964 and 30 years after the passage of Title IX, however, indicate that the successes girls have seen under Title IX have been eclipsed by the losses women have suffered despite their supposed protection under Title VII (Acosta & Carpenter, 2002b; Chesebro, 1985; Hart, Hasbrook, & Mathes, 1986; Heishman, Bunker, & Tutwiler, 1990; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Oliphant, 1995; Pedersen & Whisenant, 2002). The complexities of expanding participation opportunities for girls in both interscholastic and collegiate athletics have resulted in the power and control of girls’ athletics being seized by men.

Gender and Athletics

College Athletics

To date, a great deal of research associated with Title IX issues has been guided by the works of Acosta and Carpenter (2002a), who focused on college athletics. They reported that since the passage of Title IX, participation opportunities have increased dramatically for female athletes. The number of female student athletes grew from 74,239 in 1981 to 150,916 in 2001. Women increased from 24.2 to 41.9% of the student athlete population (Bray, 2002). Female coaches and administrators, however, have not fared as well at their athletes. Acosta and Carpenter (2002b) noted that prior to the enactment of Title IX, 90% of the women’s teams had female head coaches. Thirty years later, in 2002, however, only 44% of the coaches were women. Women’s management of women’s programs has shown an even deeper decline. In 1972, women managed 90% of the women’s programs. By 2002, the number of programs being managed by a woman dropped under 20% (Whisenant, Pedersen, & Obenour, 2002). In addition, only 16.9% of the programs had a women serving as the head athletic director, despite the fact that 41.9% of the athletes (DeHass, 2002) participating in intercollegiate athletics were women.

High School Athletes

As with collegiate sports, the effects of Title IX on high school interscholastic athletics have been mixed for girls. The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHSA, 2002) reported that in 1971, prior to the passage of Title IX, the number of boys participating in high school athletics was approximately 3.7 million. At that same time, there were 294,015 girls participating in athletics. An immediate impact on girls’ participation rates was evident in the 1972-73 school year wherein the number of girls participating rose nearly threefold to 817,073. By the end of the 1977-78 school year, the number of girls participating in high school athletics had risen to over 2 million, a level that would not be seen again until the 1993-94 school year. Girls, who comprised only 7.4% of the student athletes prior to Title IX passage, represented 32.3% of the student athletes by the end of the 1977-78 school year. The total number of student athletes, boys and girls, participating in interscholastic athletics at that time had risen by 62.8% to over 6.4 million; girls accounted for 72% of that growth. During the following 15 years, 1978-79 to 1992-93, the number of girls participating in athletics fell below 2 million. Girls averaged 1.8 million (34.6%) of all high school student athletes. By the end of the 2000-01 academic school year, the NFHS reported that total athletic participation had increased for 12 consecutive years (“Athletic Participation,” 2001). Girls’ participation rates had increased for 18 of the previous 19 years to approximately 2.8 million, and girls accounted for 41.5% of all interscholastic student athletes by the end of the 2000-01 school year. Framed within the context of girls’ participation, Title IX appears to be a success.

Beyond the playing field, however, the effects of Title IX on the women who coached and managed girls’ interscholastic sports appear to have been unsettling. Studies that have focused on interscholastic athletics have demonstrated how men have dominated the coaching positions for girls’ sports (Chesebro, 1985; Hart, Hasbrook, & Mathes, 1986; Lovett & Lowry, 1994). A few studies have addressed the plight of female interscholastic athletic directors (ADs) and athletic administrators (Heishman, Bunker, & Tutwiler, 1990; Pedersen & Whisenant, 2002). Heishman, Bunker, and Tutwiler (1990), found that the number of female ADs in Virginia had declined in numbers from 187 to 60 over a 15-year period, 1971-72 to 1986-87. During that timeframe, the number of administrator positions declined from 458 to 382, a 17% decrease. The number of women in those positions declined at an accelerated rate of 68%, to 15.7% of the administrator positions. One positive finding was that the number of female ADs rose from.4% in 1971-72 to 6.5% in 1986-87. Overall, however, they found that the number of sports directors was declining, and there was a significant decline in the number of female administrators and coaches.

Other sources of data have indirectly shown the gender inequity in interscholastic athletics administration (Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Oliphant, 1995; Whisenant, 2001). Oliphant (1995) used a modified version of the collegiate gender-equity survey (38% response rate) to conduct a gender-equity study of high schools in the state of Iowa. The findings indicated that 98.1% of the ADs who responded were men. Lovett and Lowry’s study (Lovett & Lowry, 1994) of administrative structures in Texas schools indicated only 2% of the ADs in Texas were women. Raw data collected for a study of Florida and Texas ADs (Whisenant, 2001) indicated that 6% of the ADs in Texas and 13% in Florida were women. The National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association’s 2001-2002 NIAAA National Directory of State Athletic Director Associations (NIAAA, 2002) listed the officers and key personnel who were associated with each state’s high school athletic director association. An attempt to infer the sex of the individuals listed in the directory by their first names suggests that only 12% of the state association presidents were women, and 12% of the individuals serving as state liaisons for the NIAAA were women. The disparity is also evident at the national level, whereby the NIAAA’s own Board of Directors is dominated by men: 11 of the 13 members. As with the states’ leadership, women’s representation was below 15%. At every level of interscholastic athletics, men appear to dominate the key power positions.

The Importance of Equity

Equal access to the power and prestige of the athletic director position is mandated for two basic reasons. First, the law requires equal access under Title VII. Second, it is the right thing to do based upon the fundamental principles of integrity, fairness, and other maxims often used to validate the existence of school-sponsored athletics. The numbers to-date suggest that in reality, the law is not being followed. Regardless of the terminology (e.g., gender stratification, hegemony, or patriarchy) used to identify the root cause for the inequities that exist, the facts continue to support the propositions that men control athletics, and they have yet to share their power with women (Sage, 1990). The current environment is perpetuated by the systemic nature of the organizational culture by which athletics operates. Acosta and Carpenter (1992) found that hiring decisions are influenced by the gender of the hiring decision maker. They found that female ADs had a greater percentage of female coaches in their programs (50.8%) than did male ADs (46.4%). Lovett and Lowry (1994) came to the same conclusions in their study of head coaches in Texas: women hire women, and men hire men.

The issues that arise from the male domination of athletics carry on well beyond the playing field through a process associated with Bandura’s social-cognitive theory. Bandura (1997) noted that researchers have consistently found that cultural gender stereotyping influences career choice. “Such findings suggest that gender-related efficacy impediments arise less from the discrete skills themselves than from their linkage to stereotypically male occupations” (Bandura, p. 423). Hackett and Betz (as cited in Bandura, 1997) found that the beliefs women have with regard to their abilities and career goals were directly influenced by their families, the media, educational systems, and the culture in which they lived. Because girls see so few women in the power and leadership roles in interscholastic athletics as coaches or athletic directors, when they later make career choices, they may self-select themselves out of athletic careers. The results then, are a continuation of the perpetual cycle of male domination.

Again, this cycle is evident in data (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002) that indicate that 34.1% of all public school principals were at one time a coach or an AD. Over half (56.1%) of the high school principals in the survey had a background in athletics. These results could help explain the findings of de Mello and Broughman (1996), who assessed the gender of high school principals across the United States. They reported that only 13.8% of the principals were women, despite the fact that 53.1% of the high school teachers were women. Snyder and Hoffman (2002) reported that 42.9% of all high school seniors participated in athletics, and 30.3% of all senior girls participated in athletics. With high school athletics playing such a high impact role in the lives of so many young girls, the absence of female role models in the power positions may be sending girls the message that athletics is not a viable career choice for women. The purpose of this study was to assess the magnitude of the male control over interscholastic athletics, which would provide insight into how well women have faired under Title IX at the interscholastic level, not as participants or coaches, but beyond the playing field into the offices of athletic administrators.