Group & Organization Management

Group & Organization Management http://gom.sagepub.com

Sex Differences in Job Attribute Preferences among Managers and Business Students Alison M. Konrad, Elizabeth Corrigall, Pamela Lieb and J. Edgar Ritchie, JR. Group Organization Management 2000; 25; 108 DOI: 10.1177/1059601100252002 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/108

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Eastern Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Group & Organization Management can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 49 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/2/108

Downloaded from http://gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 8, 2008 © 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

GROUPet&al. Konrad ORGANIZATION / SEX DIFFERENCES MANAGEMENT

Sex Differences in Job Attribute Preferences Among Managers and Business Students ALISON M. KONRAD Temple University ELIZABETH CORRIGALL Pennsylvania State University PAMELA LIEB The College of New Jersey J. EDGAR RITCHIE, JR. Temple University Meta-analysis of 31 studies examined whether women and men in management and business schools differ in their job attribute preferences. Findings indicated no significant sex differences for 9 of the 21 job attribute preferences studied. The 12 significant sex differences indicated that men considered earnings and responsibility to be more important than women did, whereas women considered prestige, challenge, task significance, variety, growth, job security, good coworkers, a good supervisor, and the physical work environment to be more important than men did. The significant sex differences were small, nine of them having a magnitude of .10 standard deviation units or less. Students showed larger sex differences than managers did, and changes over time showed that women increased their ratings of the importance of four job attributes relative to men. The findings imply that sex differences in job attribute preferences are not an important determinant of women’s lower status in management.

Do sex differences in job attribute preferences exist among managers and aspiring managers? Researchers have shown considerable interest in this question. By job attribute preferences, we mean the extent to which people desire a variety of specific qualities and outcomes from their paid work, including such things as performing tasks which they find interesting and enjoyable, receiving rewards they value, and working in an environment they We benefited from the comments of Jeffrey Greenhaus, Claudia Harris, Saroj Parasuraman, and Janet Spitz. Alison M. Konrad gratefully acknowledges the support of a Temple University Summer Research Fellowship. Group & Organization Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, June 2000 108-131 © 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

108


Konrad et al. / SEX DIFFERENCES

109

consider to be pleasant. Some authors have used the term work values to indicate the same type of construct (Beutell & Brenner, 1986; Hales & Waggoner, 1985). We prefer the term job attribute preferences because it distinguishes our work from studies of related constructs such as orientation to work, work centrality, or work ethic. Throughout this paper, we use the term sex to indicate the demographic categories of female and male, following Martin and Ruble (1997). We use the term gender to represent socially constructed norms and values comprising femininity and masculinity. Several rationales underlie this stream of research. Theorists debate whether women and men in management differ in their attitudes and behavior (Powell, 1993; Rosener, 1990). Traditionally predominated by men, management is an occupation in which women have increased their presence considerably (Jacobs, 1992). Despite the fact that women have greatly increased their numbers in management, they remain underrepresented among highlevel executive positions. Many believe that women’s preferences for rewards other than high pay and advancement are an important cause of their failure to attain more of the top level positions (Huckle, 1983). Some have argued that the existence of sex differences in job attribute preferences implies a need to direct male and female managers to different sets of jobs, career paths, and employers (Beutell & Brenner, 1986). Others have asserted that sex differences in job attribute preferences warrant differential treatment of women and men in management, including the use of different motivational strategies and rewards (Bigoness, 1988). In addition, economists assign a key role to tastes and preferences in determining labor market outcomes (Long, 1995). The assumption that women and men differ substantially in their job attribute preferences provides the basis for arguments against the existence of labor market discrimination and hence against the need for government equal employment policies to eradicate discrimination (Filer, 1985, 1986). It is important to ascertain whether substantial sex differences in job attribute preferences exist to respond to these calls to channel women and men into different career paths and organizations, to offer women and men different sets of rewards, and to end government anti-discrimination programs. We conducted a meta-analysis of 31 studies examining the job attribute preferences of women and men in management and business schools to examine whether significant sex differences exist. Because this literature has never been systematically reviewed or meta-analyzed, previous authors have cited different subsets of this literature, resulting in a confusing and contradictory mass of conclusions. For example, some authors have asserted that sex differences have been stable over time (e.g., Jurgenson, 1978), others have concluded that they have changed (e.g., Brenner & Tomkiewicz, 1979),


110

GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

and still others argue that the findings are mixed (e.g., Bigoness, 1988). It is important to synthesize this literature to provide a clearer understanding of the results of research to date to guide future research and draw appropriate implications for practice.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES Research on job attribute preferences seeks to determine the importance people attach to a variety of outcomes when assessing the desirability of a job. Job attributes have typically been divided into two categories, termed intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors are job aspects which fulfill material or social needs. Intrinsic factors are job aspects that fulfill higher order needs such as growth, esteem, competence, self-determination and self-expression (Pinder, 1998). Though many have found the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects useful, it is often difficult to categorize particular job aspects. For example, high earnings may enhance self-esteem in addition to fulfilling material needs. Perhaps this is the reason that no particular combination of job attributes has been consistently used to assess intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Studies have often included idiosyncratic indices based on exploratory factor analyses, resulting in inconsistent findings. For example, Brenner, Blazini, and Greenhaus (1988) developed an index of extrinsic factors by combining items assessing the importance of respect from others, job security, income, and working conditions. This index showed no significant sex difference. Bigoness (1988) divided extrinsic aspects into two separate indices, which he termed salary and work environment. The work environment index did not show a significant sex difference, but the salary index did. We argue that it is better to examine specific job attribute preferences separately because results are affected by the items chosen to construct the composite indices. Theoretically, it is possible to link specific job attribute preferences to gender roles and stereotypes. We identify masculine and feminine items among both extrinsic and intrinsic attributes. Combining these items to develop composite extrinsic and intrinsic indices introduces a conservative bias likely to mask sex differences that may exist. Two distinct theoretical perspectives have informed the research on sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences (Gregory, 1990; Gutek, 1993). The gender ideology perspective argues that gendered societal norms exist which dictate different personality characteristics and different sets of activities for women and men. These norms cause women and men to express different job attribute preferences due to the processes of internaliz-



111

ation and impression management. The structuralist perspective argues that segregation and discrimination in the labor market results in women holding poorer quality jobs than men on average. Women’s relatively limited opportunities cause sex differences to be observed in job attribute preferences through their dampening effects on women’s aspirations. Both perspectives predict that men’s and women’s job attribute preferences will be different, but they attribute causality to different underlying mechanisms. Both perspectives also imply that the pattern of sex differences in job attribute preferences will change over time, but they predict somewhat different patterns of change. Below, we outline each of these perspectives in more detail to develop hypotheses for the meta-analysis. Our data are limited due to the fact that the studies we meta-analyzed used cross-sectional research designs and did not measure the underlying causal mechanisms posited by the theories. Hence, we cannot conclusively determine whether one theoretical perspective is more accurate than the other. We simply use the theoretical perspectives to develop predictions regarding the pattern of findings we expect to observe. At the end of the article, we develop suggestions for ways that future researchers can overcome the limitations of this research. GENDER IDEOLOGY

Gender ideology may be defined as a socially-constructed script that prescribes different characteristics, values, attitudes, behaviors, and activities for women and men (West & Zimmerman, 1991). Gender roles and stereotypes are components of gender ideology. Gender roles are sets of norms prescribing the behaviors and activities appropriate for each sex (Williams & Best, 1990). Though gender roles differ by culture, generally speaking, in Western industrialized societies, traditional gender roles assign women the role of homemaker and men the role of income provider for the family. In addition, women and men are expected to have different personality characteristics, which are called gender stereotypes. Williams and Best (1990) identified several cross-cultural similarities in gender stereotypes in their study of 25 countries in all regions of the world. In most countries, the characteristics of nurturing, deference, affiliation, and passivity were associated with the female sex, and autonomy, aggression, dominance, and achievement were associated with the male. Most societies engage in differential socialization by sex. Preadult genderrole socialization develops different sets of interests, values, and attitudes in girls and boys, preparing them to embrace gendered work and family roles in adult life. In addition, adult women and men experience normative and


112


informational pressure to conform to gender expectations (Burn, 1996). Normative pressure refers to the threat of social sanctioning or rejection. Hence, people may conform to gender expectations to avoid others’ disapproval. Informational pressure refers to people’s reliance on social information to navigate a socially-constructed world. Thus, people may conform to gender expectations because they provide guidance for appropriate behavior in new, ambiguous, or complex situations. Having experienced a lifetime of pressure to be nurturing and supportive, women may internalize these values as part of their social identities, whereas men may internalize the values of aggressiveness and dominance. The internalization of gender ideology and normatively or informationally driven impression management causes women and men to show small but statistically significant differences in values and attitudes. The direction of these differences reflects gender roles and stereotypes. Thompson, Pleck, and Ferrera (1992) exhaustively review the dimensions of the stereotypical masculine ideal postulated in the literature. They uncovered the following dimensions: (a) self-reliance, (b) restricted emotionality, (c) physical toughness and prowess, (d) aggressiveness, (e) achievement/ success/status, (f ) aggressive sexuality/homophobia, (g) avoidance of femininity, and (h) patriarchal ideology/male dominance. Corresponding dimensions of the stereotypical feminine ideal include dependency, emotional expressivity, physical weakness, passivity, nurturing/vicarious achievement, and female self-sacrifice (Burn, 1996). If people’s job attribute preferences reflect gender ideology, then, on average, men more than women should value responsibility and independence because these fulfill the masculine value of self-reliance. Earnings, advancement, prestige, and recognition should be more important to men because these fulfill the masculine values of success and status. Challenge and responsibility should be more important to men because they fulfill the masculine value of demonstrating prowess. By comparison, women should value interpersonal relationships on the job more than men do because relationships allow them to fulfill the feminine ideal of nurturing. Also, women who fulfill the feminine ideal of dependency on others may value good interpersonal relationships because being dependent in a bad relationship exposes one to exploitation and abuse. A comfortable working environment should be more important to women because, unlike men, they do not experience ideological pressure to demonstrate physical toughness. Job security should be more important to women because they do not experience pressure to demonstrate self-reliance. Opportunities to help others should be more important to women because these fulfill the feminine values of nurturing and self-sacrifice. Conducting work that involves growth, development, and meaningful work should be more important



113

to women because these fulfill the feminine value of expressiveness. Finally, convenience in the form of good hours should be more important to women because it reduces conflict between the work role and the demands of homemaking and childcare, which traditional gender roles assign primarily to women. Hypothesis 1: Men consider responsibility, autonomy, earnings, advancement, prestige, recognition, and challenge to be more important than women do. Hypothesis 2: Women consider job security, good coworkers, a good supervisor, physical work environment, helping others, growth/development opportunities, opportunities to use one’s abilities, variety, task significance, a feeling of accomplishment, and good hours to be more important than men do.

Many believe that gender ideology has weakened in the past few decades. In their literature review, Kahn and Crosby (1985) found increasing support over time for women’s labor force participation, for women’s participation in all types of occupations, for equal pay, for working mothers, and for the development of day-care centers. Willinger (1993) found that over time, undergraduate men developed more liberal attitudes toward women’s paid work and toward gender roles in the family. Using General Social Survey data, Wilkie (1993) found that men’s support of women’s participation in the provider role increased significantly from 1972 to 1989. In a recent metaanalysis of studies using the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS), Twenge (1997) found that undergraduate women and men in the United States showed more liberal attitudes toward women’s rights and roles in the early 1990s than they did in the early 1970s. Though men showed more traditional/conservative scores than women throughout this time period, sex differences on the AWS narrowed between 1986 and 1995. If gender ideology is weakening, then the socialization of children is becoming less gender-typed, leading to narrower sex differences in a wide variety of values and attitudes. Less gender typing during childhood socialization would lead to narrower job attribute preferences among more recent cohorts of managers. Weakening gender ideology would also result in fewer pressures on adults to conform to traditional gender roles, resulting in less need for conformity to gender-typed norms. Reduced conformity should result in less need to internalize gender-typed values and attitudes or to express gender-typed attitudes in impression management attempts, reducing sex differences longitudinally among all management cohorts. Hence, longitudinal and cohort change should take the same direction of reducing the size of the gender-typed differences posited in Hypotheses 1 and 2. Unfortunately, we do not have enough longitudinal studies in the database to


114


differentiate between change over time that is due to cohort differences and longitudinal change. Hypothesis 3: Time moderates the relationship between sex and job attribute preferences such that more gender-typed sex differences are observed in earlier than in later years. STRUCTURALISM

Structuralists argue that barriers to women’s opportunities cause sex differences in job attribute preferences (Gregory, 1990; Gutek, 1993). These structural barriers include such things as discrimination, the structure of promotion ladders in organizations, and the design of work equipment and tools. Structuralists also do not ignore the fact that societal institutions define homemaking and childcare as unpaid, private tasks and that the institution of the traditional family assigns these unpaid tasks to women. Women who enter the paid labor force are disadvantaged by the burden of family responsibilities that interfere with the paid work role, limiting women’s abilities to compete for the best positions. As a result, women’s jobs are less likely than men’s to offer most of the job attributes people consider to be necessary components of good jobs, such as autonomy, high earnings, full-time hours, on-the-job training, low-risk of job loss, and nonrepetitive work (Jencks, Perman, & Rainwater, 1988). Even within management, women have lower earnings, are at lower levels in the hierarchy, have less decision-making authority, and are more likely to hold staff rather than line positions (Jacobs, 1992; Reskin & Ross, 1995). The opportunity structure affects people’s job attribute preferences through the accommodation process. Because desiring job attributes that are not realistically available is frustrating, people lower their aspirations (Borg, 1991). Women are thought to accommodate themselves to their reduced opportunities by lowering their aspirations for obtaining desirable job attributes (Mottaz, 1986). The logic of the structuralist perspective implies that women in management will attach less importance to job attributes that are less available to them. Hence, if we observe that women attach less importance to earnings, promotions, authority, leadership, and responsibility than their male counterparts, the reason for such sex differences might be women’s accommodation to fewer opportunities rather than (or in addition to) the effects of gender roles and stereotypes. The structuralist perspective implies that we will observe change over time in the pattern of sex differences in job attribute preferences because a number of structural changes have occurred which have increased women’s opportunities relative to men’s. Government affirmative action and equal



115

employment opportunity programs have improved women’s labor market opportunities (Leonard, 1994). Large numbers of child day-care centers now serve the needs of working parents (Booth, 1992). Employers have begun to provide assistance to employees faced with competing work and family demands (Goodstein, 1994; Ingram & Simons, 1995). Though the availability of affordable, high-quality day-care is insufficient to serve the needs of many families and many employers do not provide family-friendly benefits to workers, these structural changes have nonetheless increased women’s opportunities, including their opportunities in management (Jacobs, 1992; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). The accommodation process implies that as women’s opportunities expand, their aspirations for obtaining desirable job attributes will also rise. The result of a reduced need to accommodate to unequal opportunities should be an increase in women’s ratings of the importance of job attributes relative to men’s. As opportunities to earn high salaries, promotions, and positions of leadership and responsibility become more available to women, the structuralist perspective implies that they are more likely to consider those attributes important in a good job. As such, sex differences on items that men rated more highly in the earlier time period should be reduced over time. However, rising aspirations among women do not imply that all of their job attribute preferences will become more like men’s. For example, if we observe in the earlier time period that women consider intrinsic job aspects to be more important than men do, a rising-aspirations argument does not imply a narrowing of this difference over time. Rather, women who perceive greater opportunities may increase their ratings of the importance of intrinsic job attributes such as challenge, opportunities to use one’s skills and abilities, growth, and development. In sum, unlike the gender ideology perspective’s prediction of a reduction in sex differences over time, the structuralist perspective’s rising aspirations argument implies that some sex differences in job attribute preferences could become wider. Hypothesis 4: Time moderates the relationship between sex and job attribute preferences such that women’s ratings of the importance of job attributes rise over time relative to men’s.

METHOD Studies containing data comparing women’s and men’s job attribute preferences were identified by means of both manual and computer-assisted searches of the social science, psychology, and management literatures.


116


Though some meta-analysts include only published studies (e.g., Feingold, 1994; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995), many attempt to obtain unpublished studies from reference lists of relevant studies, qualitative review articles, and databases like ERIC and/or Dissertation Abstracts International (e.g., Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). We used similar procedures to obtain as many published and unpublished studies as possible. Including unpublished studies in a meta-analysis is beneficial because it reduces the impact of publication bias on the findings. Publication bias is the systematic error resulting from the fact that statistically significant results are more likely to be published than nonsignificant results (Rosenthal, 1991). Our search for published literature began with an examination of three computer databases for all available years: Psychlit (1974-1994), Sociofile (1971-1994), and ABI/INFORM (1981-1994). These databases cover organizational behavior, industrial/organizational psychology, career development, vocational behavior, gender studies, and sociological perspectives on work. We used all the keywords we could think of to find studies that might include comparisons of women and men on measures of job attribute preferences, including job attribute preferences, job attitudes, job involvement, job satisfaction, occupational attitudes, occupational preferences, work values, work orientation, and work attitudes. We identified several qualitative literature reviews and annotated bibliographies and examined them for citations to research that could possibly include measures of job attribute preferences (Alderfer & Guzzo, 1979; Ashburn, 1977; Betz & O’Connell, 1989; Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Doering, Rhodes, & Schuster, 1983; Fagenson, 1993; Gutek, Stromberg, & Larwood, 1988; Koziara, Moskow, & Tanner, 1987; Larwood, Stromberg, & Gutek, 1985; Laws, 1979; Leavitt, 1982, 1988; Lemkau, 1979; Marini, 1978; Nieva & Gutek, 1981; Powell, 1993; Seashore & Taber, 1975; Smith, 1977; Stromberg, Larwood, & Gutek, 1987; Terborg, 1977; Wilkinson, 1991). To obtain unpublished studies, we used the same set of keywords to scan the ERIC (1966-1994), and Dissertation Abstracts (1985-1994) computerized databases for all available years. We obtained copies of 84 dissertations and 130 ERIC documents to determine whether they included measures of job attribute preferences. We sent requests to 25 authors for copies of unpublished manuscripts or conference papers. Our requests to members of the Eastern Academy of Management Women’s Network and the Women in Management Division of the Academy of Management netted a few additional studies. The search process generated a list of more than 800 studies. We obtained copies of each and determined whether they were part of the study popula-



117

tion. We also scanned the reference lists of each to identify more studies. This process was continued until no new citations were found. We limited this meta-analysis to studies using U.S. data collected from managers or business students in 1970 or later. In all, 31 studies utilizing 35 separate data sets were meta-analyzed, including 18 refereed journal articles, 3 articles in practitioner-oriented journals, 4 dissertations, 4 papers published in conference proceedings, and 2 unpublished manuscripts. Restricting our sample to studies conducted in 1970 or later reduces our ability to detect change over time. The magnitude of change in gender roles between 1950 and 1994, for example, was more pronounced than that occurring since 1970. Despite this problem, we introduced the time restriction to enhance the validity of our results. We were not at all confident that we could obtain unpublished studies conducted before 1970 so that any studies we obtained using earlier data would be subject to publication bias. This bias is a particular problem for our research because if the early studies are more likely to show significant sex differences due to publication bias, then any narrowing of sex differences over time could be attributed to bias rather than real change. We believed this problem was significant enough to limit the population of our study to data sets collected in 1970 or later.

MEASURES Nineteen of the studies used author-created instruments that were neither previously used nor validated. Seven of the 35 data sets used Manhardt’s (1972) measure, four used items developed by Quinn and Staines (1979) for the Quality of Employment Survey, and one each used measures previously developed by Alper (1975), Bigoness (1988), Hales and Fenner (1973), Hofstede (1980), Rokeach (1968), Super (1970), and Weaver (1976). Not all studies measured the same set of job attribute preferences, and different question wordings rendered comparisons between studies difficult. To overcome these problems, we developed a coding system to categorize the different measures into comparison groups. We used studies of subjects other than managers or business students to develop the coding system so that the categories would be independent of the data included in the meta-analysis. Each of the four authors independently assessed 10 studies to develop a set of categories for coding job attribute preference measures. The categories were compared and combined, and the authors used the combined categorical system to independently code a different set of 10 studies each. New categories were added after the second round of coding, and the authors conducted a


118

GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT TABLE 1

Classification System for Job Attribute Preference Measures Category

Sample Items

General measure of extrinsic values General measure of intrinsic values

Index combining pay, fringe benefits, job security, and chances for promotion Index combining intellectual stimulation, creativeness, independence, change, cultural and aesthetic, accomplishment, and continued development Earnings Pay, compensation, money, salary Benefits Fringe benefits, employee benefits, medical insurance benefits, life insurance benefits Promotion opportunities Advancement, promotional opportunities Job security Security, provides job security Prestige Prestige, high status, social status, is respected by other people Recognition Recognition, rewards good performance with recognition Physical work environment Working conditions, provides comfortable working conditions, working facilities Good coworkers Coworkers, competent/sociable coworkers, caliber of personnel, friendly coworkers Good supervisor Friendly supervisor, working relations—supervisor, permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect Good hours The hours are good Opportunities to help others/ Altruism, social service benefit society Freedom/autonomy Independence, freedom to do the job my own way, decision freedom Growth/development Develop professionally, opportunity to learn, training opportunities programs Challenge Challenging work Use abilities Opportunity to use abilities Variety Provides change and variety in duties and activities, variety Responsibility Starting job responsibility, responsibility for taking risks Task significance Important work, meaningful work, requires working on problems of central importance to the organization Feeling of accomplishment Accomplishment, achievement

third round of independent coding on yet a third set of 10 studies each. After three rounds of category development, the coding system was completed. Table 1 shows the coding system with examples of items placed in each category. The four authors used the coding system to categorize job attribute preferences measured in 30 additional studies. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest the following formula to calculate the inter-rater reliability of a coding



119

system: (number of agreements) / (total number of agreements plus disagreements). Using this formula, we achieved 92% agreement among the four coders. Each of the studies of managers and business students were then coded independently by two of the authors. The few disagreements were resolved in discussion. EFFECT SIZE CALCULATIONS

Cohen’s d was chosen as the effect size indicator for the meta-analysis because the research question makes a comparison between groups. Cohen’s d is the standardized difference between group means [(M1 – M2)/SW] or the difference between the means expressed in standard deviation units (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Seventeen of the studies provided sufficient information to allow calculation of exact effect sizes using formulas supplied by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) and Rosenthal (1991). Five of the studies reported exact statistics only for the significant sex effects, indicating the other effects simply as nonsignificant. Nine of the studies reported only general p values for the comparison of job attribute preferences by sex (e.g., p < .05). In cases where only general information was provided, ds were estimated by substituting the most conservative possible p value that would produce the reported level of significance (Rosenthal, 1991). META-ANALYTIC CALCULATIONS

We conducted the meta-analysis using the formulas developed by Rosenthal (1991). Johnson, Mullen, and Salas (1995) documented the validity of this method, demonstrating that it resulted in convergent findings with the methods developed by Hedges and Olkin (1985). First, the mean effect sizes were calculated by taking the average of the d values (weighted by their sample sizes) for each of the job attribute preference indices included in at least 10 data sets. The variance around the weighted mean d is obtained using the formula: Var( d ) =

∑ w [d − D] ∑ w 2

i

i

i

,

where di = the d value for study i, wi = the sample size for study i, and D = the weighted average of the d values (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990, p. 285).


120


Specifically, we calculated the weighted average of d for all studies including a measure of the importance of earnings, for all studies including a measure of the importance of promotion opportunities, and so forth. Most of the studies in the meta-analysis included measures of the importance of multiple-job attributes, such as earnings, promotion, interpersonal relationships, physical work environment, and so forth. The number of studies included in each mean effect size (k) is different for each of the 21 job attribute preferences because each meta-analytic calculation was based on a somewhat different population of studies. This is because different studies included different sets of measures (e.g., one study measured the importance of earnings, promotion, and interesting work, whereas another measured the importance of earnings, benefits, challenging work, and opportunities to help others). Second, we used the method of adding weighted Zs to calculate whether each of the mean effect sizes differed significantly from zero. For each d value, we calculated the corresponding Z score. Then, we weighted each Z by its sample size and calculated the sum of the weighted Zs. This sum is divided by the square root of the sum of the squared weights. The resulting figure is distributed as Z (Rosenthal, 1991, p. 69). Third, we made a comparison of studies conducted in the 1970s with studies conducted in 1980 or later. The comparisons are conducted by developing a set of contrast weights, the sum of which is zero, and assigning them to each of the studies. Once a set of weights has been chosen, they are used in the following formula: k

Z=

∑λ

j

Z (r ) j

j =1

k

,

∑ λ2j ( N j − 3) j =1

where k = the number of studies included in the moderator analysis, λ = the contrast weight assigned to study j, Z(r)j = Fisher Z(r) corresponding to d value of study j, and Nj = number of subjects in study j. The resulting figure is distributed as Z (Rosenthal, 1991). A statistically significant Z value indicates that the findings from studies conducted in the 1970s differed significantly from the studies conducted in later years.



121

RESULTS Table 2 shows the weighted mean effect sizes, their variances, the Z values indicating whether they differed significantly from zero, number of subjects and data sets included in each effect size, and fail-safe ns. Positive d statistics indicated items having greater importance to men and negative d statistics indicated greater importance to women. The fail-safe n assesses the number of studies showing no significant sex difference that would have to exist to render the observed d value nonsignificant. As such, it indicates the relative seriousness of the threat of publication bias to the validity of the meta-analytic conclusions. A fail-safe n equal or greater than (5k + 10) is considered robust to the threat of publication bias (Rosenthal, 1991). In all, 21 effect sizes were calculated, and 12 of these indicted statistically significant sex differences. All of the significant differences were small: Nine had an absolute value of .10 or less, and the largest had an absolute value of .21. Also, the fail-safe ns indicated that the only robust differences were those for physical work environment and a good supervisor. As can be seen by comparing the second column of d values to the first, findings were not very different when the estimated d values were excluded. The largest difference increases to an absolute value of .30. All but two of the significant sex differences were negative, indicating factors of greater importance to women. Supporting the gender ideology perspective (Hypotheses 1 and 2), many of the significant differences were in the direction reflecting gender roles and stereotypes. Specifically, earnings and responsibility were slightly more important to men, whereas physical work environment, good social relationships, and good hours were slightly more important to women. Job security was slightly more important to women as were three items assessing intrinsic aspects of work, including growth/development opportunities, variety, and task significance. Two significant differences seemed inconsistent with gender ideology: Challenge and prestige were more important to women. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were tested by comparing studies using data collected in the 1970s to studies using more recently collected data. For the 15 studies not reporting the year of data collection, we estimated the year by subtracting two from the year of publication or presentation. Four of the 21 comparisons showed significant changes over time (see Table 3). All of the changes were in the direction supporting Hypothesis 3’s notion of rising aspirations among women. Specifically, men expressed stronger preferences for responsibility in the 1970s, and this difference declined to nonsignificance in the 1980s and 1990s. There was no significant sex difference in the importance of challenge in the 1970s, but challenge became more important to women in the 1980s


122


Meta-Analytic Statistics for Sex Differences in Job Attribute Preferences Job Attribute

Weighted Weighted a b Mean d Mean d Var (d)

Extrinsic values composite Earnings Promotion opportunities Recognition Physical work environment Benefits Opportunities to help others Prestige Job security Good coworkers Good hours Good supervisor Intrinsic values composite Responsibility Freedom/Autonomy Use abilities Feeling of accomplishment Challenge Task significance Variety Growth/development

–0.04 0.07 –0.01 –0.04 –0.04 –0.05 –0.06 –0.07 –0.08 –0.10 –0.15 –0.21 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.01 –0.04 –0.06 –0.07 –0.09 –0.16

–0.03 0.08 –0.02 –0.05 –0.05 –0.09 –0.08 –0.10 –0.10 –0.12 –0.17 –0.30 –0.11 0.07 0.00 –0.08 –0.18 –0.20 –0.08 –0.11 –0.18

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.06

Z –1.64 2.28 –0.98 –0.66 –5.25 –1.44 –1.30 –2.50 –3.31 –3.83 –2.92 –6.80 –0.73 2.16 0.45 –0.52 –1.50 –2.14 –2.93 –2.05 –4.57

n

k

FailSafe n

3,057 8,113 7,436 2,359 7,359 3,301 3,503 3,143 9,228 6,259 3,681 3,920 2,093 4,311 4,775 2,275 2,647 3,021 3,469 2,086 3,699

10 26 22 11 26 10 13 16 30 24 10 18 10 17 21 10 14 11 11 10 15

NA 9 NA NA 161 NA NA 10 56 68 12 198 NA 4 NA NA NA 2 14 1 66

NOTE: NA = not applicable. A positive (negative) d value indicates greater importance to men (women). Zs of magnitude greater than 1.96 are significant at the .05 level. A fail-safe n greater than (5K + 10) indicates robustness to publication bias. a. d values calculated from all studies. b. d values calculated from data providing exact statistics only.

and 1990s. In the 1970s, men gave higher ratings to the importance of opportunities to use one’s abilities and composite indices of intrinsic values. In the 1980s and 1990s, women’s ratings of these two measures exceeded men’s. When data derived from estimated d values were excluded, the findings for challenge and using one’s abilities were no longer significant, though the magnitude and direction of the statistics for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were similar. Gregory (1990) argued that studies of business students are more likely to show significant sex differences supporting gender stereotypes. To examine



123

TABLE 3

Significant Findings for Moderator Analysis Examining Change Over Time Job Attribute Intrinsic values Composite Challenge Use abilities Responsibility

Weighted Mean d Z

.25 .09 .21 .31

n

2.97 961 0.79 873 2.75 1,043 5.44 1,326

k

Weighted Mean d

5 4 6 6

–.19 –.13 –.15 –.01

Z

–3.22 –2.84 –2.59 –0.76

n

k

Change Z

1,132 2,148 1,232 2,985

5 7 4 11

3.48 3.26 3.21 3.54

NOTE: A positive (negative) d value indicates greater importance to men (women). Zs of magnitude greater than 1.96 are significant at the .05 level.

whether the overall findings of the study were affected by the inclusion of student subjects, we compared the studies of business students to the studies of managers. Table 4 shows the results for the six job attributes where studies of students and managers differed. As Gregory (1990) predicted, in five of these cases, students showed statistically significant sex differences where managers did not. Among students, women attached greater importance to good coworkers, growth/development opportunities, challenge, opportunities to use one’s abilities, and a feeling of accomplishment. Among managers, none of these differences differed significantly from zero. Managers and students showed opposite findings for sex differences in the importance of freedom/autonomy. Among managers, freedom/autonomy was more important to men, whereas among students, it was more important to women. When data derived from estimated d values were excluded, the findings for challenge, accomplishment, and using one’s abilities were no longer significant, tugh the magnitude and direction of the statistics for students and managers were similar to those depicted in the table. Because studies of students and adults showed some differences, the possibility of confounding between the year of data collection and the type of subjects threatened the validity of our conclusions regarding change over time. Specifically, a higher proportion of studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s may have used student data. To test this possibility, we conducted a series of chi-square tests. All chi-squares were nonsignificant, indicating that data from students and managers were equally likely to have been collected in both time periods.


124


Comparison of Studies of Managers and Business Students Job Attribute Good coworkers Freedom/autonomy Growth/development Challenge Use abilities Feeling of accomplishment

Weighted Mean d Z –.18 –.10 –.22 –.27 –.19

n

k

–5.19 3,250 14 –2.14 2,032 10 –4.84 2,620 10 –4.01 917 3 –2.09 520 3

–.16 –2.74 1,185

Weighted Mean d

Z

–.01 –0.95 .12 2.03 –.01 –0.86 .03 0.19 .07 0.35

5

.05

0.69

n

k

3,009 2,743 1,079 2,104 1,755

10 11 5 8 7

1,462

Difference Z –2.53 –3.09 –2.94 –3.94 –2.52

9 –2.40

NOTE: A positive (negative) d value indicates greater importance to men (women). Zs of magnitude greater than 1.96 are significant at the .05 level.

DISCUSSION Our findings show a number of small sex differences in job attribute preferences among managers and business students. Women and men differed slightly in the importance they attached to 12 of the 21 specific job attributes we examined. Two of those sex differences were in the direction indicating greater importance to men. Men attached greater importance to earnings and responsibility than women did. These findings reflect gender roles and stereotypes pressuring men to take on the role of provider and to demonstrate success and status. Women attached greater importance to job security, prestige, a comfortable work environment, good coworkers, a good supervisor, good hours, growth/development opportunities, challenge, variety, and task significance. Many of these findings relate to gender roles and stereotypes pressuring women to take the role of homemaker and to demonstrate nurturing and expressiveness. The job attributes of challenge and prestige, however, seem more consistent with masculine than with feminine ideology. Hence, the fact that women more than men considered challenge and prestige to be important defies gender role expectations. Also defying gender role expectations and stereotypes were several findings showing no significant difference between women and men. Women and men did not differ in the importance they attached to promotion opportunities, benefits, recognition, opportunities to help others, freedom/autonomy, opportunities to use their abilities, and a feeling of accomplishment. Future research could contribute to the literature by directly measuring the underlying causal mechanisms theorized as linking gender roles and



125

stereotypes to job attribute preferences. The gender ideology perspective suggests that sex differences in job attribute preferences result from impression management and internalization. Researchers could examine the effects of impression management by assessing whether people with a stronger tendency to conform to expectations are more likely to show gender typing in their job attribute preferences. Tendency toward conforming behavior can be measured using indices of self-monitoring or social desirability bias. Researchers could also examine whether people who have internalized gender typed norms and values are more likely to show sex differences in job attribute preferences (Freedman & Phillips, 1988). The structuralist view of sex differences received support in the analyses examining change over time. Under this perspective, we predicted that women would respond to increasing opportunities by raising the level of importance they attached to a variety of desirable job attributes. On four dimensions, including challenge, opportunities to use one’s abilities, responsibility, and composite indices of intrinsic attributes, we observed that women’s ratings of importance rose relative to men’s. In the later time period, significant sex differences indicated that women rated three of the four attributes (all but responsibility) significantly more highly than men did. The fact that we were able to detect change over time is significant, given that our data were restricted to a relatively short time period (1970-1994). To demonstrate that these findings were indeed due to structural changes, future researchers need to directly measure the causal mechanism posited by structuralist theory. Specifically, researchers could demonstrate an association between the opportunities available to women and men and their job attribute preferences. Several measures of intrinsic aspects showed significant differences between students and managers. Among students, women attached greater importance to intrinsic attributes, whereas among managers, there was either no sex difference or a difference showing greater importance to men. One possible explanation for these findings is that the working managers and business students represented different cohorts. The average reported age of the business student subjects ranged from the early to mid-twenties, whereas the average for working managers ranged from the mid- to late thirties. Women students in the younger cohort may have greater opportunities to obtain management jobs offering challenge, growth, autonomy, and so forth, than women managers in the older cohort did. As such, the students were less likely to accommodate themselves to reduced opportunities by lowering their aspirations. Longitudinal research is needed to test whether women entering management retain their high aspirations or find it necessary to accommodate to structural limitations on their opportunities.


126


Do the sex differences we observed support the notion that women’s poorer attainments in the field of management are the result of their own choices? The fact that men attached greater importance to earnings and responsibility implies that they may be more likely than women to seek jobs offering the highest salaries. The fact that women attached greater importance to security, comfort, good hours, and intrinsically rewarding work implies that they may be willing to trade away earnings to obtain these nonpecuniary job aspects (Filer, 1985, 1986). It is also possible, however, that men and women show these types of differences because they face different opportunities, as the structuralist theoretical perspective implies. Given the theoretical ambiguities, it is not appropriate to use the results of this study to support differential treatment of women and men in the workplace or to justify calls to end government antidiscrimination programs. Longitudinal work is needed to determine whether sex differences in preferences cause women’s poorer labor market outcomes or whether poorer labor market opportunities for women are the cause of sex differences in preferences. Also, the findings themselves do not entirely support the contention that women’s poorer status in management is due to their preferences. One finding supporting this contention declined over time: Women’s tendency to attach less importance than men to responsibility declined to nonsignificance in more recent years. Other findings were unique to student samples; only among students did women attach greater importance than men did to good coworkers, growth/development, challenge, opportunities to use one’s abilities and a feeling of accomplishment. Still other findings indicate an equal or stronger desire among women to obtain high-level management positions. Specifically, women attached greater importance to prestige, task significance, and growth/development opportunities than men did. Most important, the observed differences were small, showing that much larger differences exist within than between the sexes. As such, these findings do not imply that sex differences in job attribute preferences are an important cause of the lower status of women in management.

REFERENCES Alderfer, C. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1979). Life experiences and adults’ enduring strength of desires in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 347-361. Alper, S. W. (1975). Racial differences in job and work environment priorities among newly hired college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 132-134. Ashburn, E. A. (1977). Motivation, personality, and work-related characteristics of women in male-dominated professions. Washington, DC: National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors.



127

*Bartol, K. M. (1976). Relationship of sex and professional training area to job orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 368-370. Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447. Betz, M., & O’Connell, L. (1989). Work orientations of males and females: Exploring the gender socialization approach. Sociological Inquiry, 59, 318-330. *Beutell, N. J., & Brenner, O. C. (1986). Sex differences in work values. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 29-41. *Bigoness, W. J. (1988). Sex differences in job attribute preferences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 39-147. Booth, A. (Ed.). (1992). Child care in the 1990s: Trends and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Borg, I. (1991). On the relationship between importance and satisfaction ratings on job aspects. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 81-92. *Brenner, O. C., Blazini, A. P., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1988). An examination of race and sex differences in managerial work values. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 336-344. *Brenner, O. C., & Tomkiewicz, J. (1979). Job orientation of males and females: Are sex differences declining? Personnel Psychology, 32, 741-750. *Brenner, O. C., & Tomkiewicz, J. (1982). Job orientation of Black and White college graduates in business. Personnel Psychology, 35, 89-103. *Brief, A. P., & Oliver, R. L. (1976). Male-female differences in work attitudes among retail sales managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 526-528. Burn, S. M. (1996). The social psychology of gender. New York: McGraw-Hill. *Chusmir, L. H., & Parker, B. (1991). Gender and situational differences in managers’ values: A look at work and home lives. Journal of Business Research, 23, 325-335. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic Press. *Curran, J. E. (1993). Gender differences and similarities in noneconomic orientation to work and work values. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University. Doering, M., Rhodes, S. R., & Schuster, M. (1983). The aging worker: Research and recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Donnell, S. M., & Hall, J. (1980). Men and women as managers: A significant case of no significant difference. Organizational Dynamics, 8(4), 60-77. *Dowling, P. J., & Nagel, T. W. (1986). Nationality and work attitudes: A study of Australian and American business majors. Journal of Management, 12, 121-128. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330. *Essen, U. W. (1984). Relationships among work values, sex, age, and job satisfaction in a selected sample of United States workers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconson at Madison. Fagenson, E. A. (Ed.). (1993). Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429-456. Filer, R. K. (1985). Male-female wage differences: The importance of compensating differentials. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 426-437. *Indicates studies included in the meta-analysis.


128


Filer, R. K. (1986). The role of personality and tastes in determining occupational structure. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 39, 412-424. Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1988). The changing nature of research on women at work. Journal of Management, 14, 231-251. Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350-382. *Gomez-Mejía, L. R. (1983). Sex differences during occupational socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 492-499. Gregory, A. (1990). Are women different and why are women thought to be different? Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 257-266. *Greenlaw, P. S., & Bresee, C. A. (1982). The woman MBA: A positive employment profile. Personnel Administrator, (July), 55-60. Gutek, B. A. (1993). Changing the status of women in management. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 301-311. Gutek, B. A., Stromberg, A. H., & Larwood, L. (Eds.). (1988). Women and work: An annual review, (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hales, L. W., & Fenner, B. J. (1973). Sex and social class differences in work values. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 8, 26-32. *Hales, L. W., & Waggoner, J. (1985). Measuring the work values of public school administrators. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 108-119. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Huckle, P. (1983). A decade’s difference: Mid-level managers and affirmative action. Public Personnel Management Journal, 12, 249-257. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1466-1482. *Jacobs, J. A. (1992). Women’s entry into management: Trends in earnings, authority, and values among salaried managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 282-301. Jencks, C., Perman, L., & Rainwater, L. (1988). What is a good job? A new measure of labor-market success. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1322-1357. *Jensen, T. D., White, D. D., & Singh, R. (1990). Impact of gender, hierarchial position, and leadership styles on work-related values. Journal of Business Research, 20, 145-152. Johnson, B. T., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 94-106. Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (What makes a job good or bad?). Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 267-276. Kahn, W. A., & Crosby, F. (1985). Discriminating between attitudes and discriminatory behaviors: Change and stasis. In L. Larwood, A. H. Stromberg, & B. A. Gutek (Eds.), Women and Work, An Annual Review (Vol. 1, pp. 215-238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Konrad, A. M. (1992a). Gender and preferences for the task content of managerial work. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Work and Organizational Values, 148-154. *Konrad, A. M. (1992b). Alumni career survey. Unpublished manuscript.



129

*Konrad, A. M. (1994). Managers’ task preferences in the USA. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Work and Organizational Values, 179-183. *Konrad, A. M., & Langton, N. (1991). Sex differences in job preferences, workplace segregation, and compensating earnings differentials: The case of Stanford MBAs. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 368-372. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787-820. Koziara, K. S., Moskow, M. H., & Tanner, L. D. (1987). Working women: Past, present, future. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs. Larwood, L., Stromberg, A. H., & Gutek, B. A. (Eds.). (1985). Women and work: An annual review (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Laws, J. L. (1979). Work motivation and work behavior of women: New perspectives. In J. A. Sherman & F. L. Denmark (Eds.), The psychology of women: Future directions in research (pp. 287-348). New York: Psychological Dimensions. Leavitt, J. A. (1982). Women in management: An annotated bibliography and sourcelist. New York: Oryx. Leavitt, J. A. (1988). Women in administration and management: An information sourcebook. New York: Oryx. Lemkau, J. P. (1979). Personality and background characteristics of women in male-dominated occupations: A review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 221-240. Leonard, J. S. (1994). Affirmative action: Symbolic accommodation and conflict. New Approaches to Employee Management, 2, 13-33. Long, J. E. (1995). The effects of tastes and motivation on individual income. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 338-351. *Major, B., & Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay expectations and their possible causes. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 777-792. Manhardt, P. J. (1972). Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business. Personnel Psychology, 25, 361-368. Marini, M. M. (1978). Sex differences in the determination of adolescent aspirations: A review of research. Sex Roles, 4, 723-753. Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (1997). A developmental perspective of self-construals and sex differences: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 45-50. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Morgan, R. G., Bremser, W. G., & Chou, C. (1980). Are expectations realistic? Job expectations of entrants into the accounting profession. The Woman CPA, 42, 13-17. *Moss, M. K. (1989). Predicting job preferences: An investigation of the self-to-prototype and linear job attributes decision-making models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Mottaz, C. (1986). Gender differences in work satisfaction, work-related rewards and values, and the determinants of work satisfaction. Human Relations, 39, 359-378. *Neuse, S. M. (1978). Professionalism and authority: Women in public service. Public Administration Review, 38, 436-441. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger. Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


130


Powell, G. N. (1993). Women and men in management (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1979). The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Reskin, B. F., & Ross, C. E. (1995). Jobs, authority, and earnings among managers: The continuing significance of sex. In J. A. Jacobs (Ed.), Gender inequality at work (pp. 127-151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. New York: Free Press. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119-125. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (revised ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Seashore, S. E., & Taber, T. D. (1975). Job satisfaction indicators and their correlates. American Behavioral Scientist, 18, 333-368. Smith, E. J. (1977). Work attitudes and the job satisfaction of Black workers. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 25, 252-263. *Stevens, G. E. (1985). Job preferences and job outcomes: A significant case of no significant gender differences. Northeast AIDS Proceedings, 173-175. *Stevens, G. E., & Brenner, O. C. (n.d.) The job orientation of Black and White business students. Unpublished manuscript. Stromberg, A. H., Larwood, L., & Gutek, B. A. (Eds.). (1987). Women and work: An annual review (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Super, D. E. (1970). Manual: Work values inventory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. *Suther, B. L. (1989). Perceived influence of hygiene and motivator variables on the job attitude of assistant principals in a large urban school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Terborg, J. R. (1977). Women in management: A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 647-664. *Terpstra, D. E. (1983). An investigation of job-seeker preferences through multiple methodologies. Journal of Employment Counseling, 20, 169-178. Thompson, E. H., Jr., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. L. (1992). Men and masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related constructs. Sex Roles, 27, 573-607. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35-51. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270. *Walker, J. E., Tausky, C., & Oliver, D. (1982). Men and women at work: Similarities and differences in work values within occupational groupings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 17-36. Weaver, C. N. (1976). What workers want from their jobs. Personnel, 53, 48-54. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. *Wheeler, K. G. (1981). Sex differences in perceptions of desired rewards, availability of rewards, and abilities in relation to occupational selection. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54, 141-148. Wilkie, J. R. (1993). Changes in U.S. men’s attitudes toward the family provider role, 1972-1989. Gender and Society, 7, 261-279. Wilkinson, C. W. (1991). Women working in nontraditional fields: References and resources 1963-1988. Boston: G. K. Hall.



131

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Willinger, B. (1993). Resistance and change: College men’s attitudes toward family and work in the 1980s. In J. C. Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 108-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alison M. Konrad is an associate professor at Temple University’s Fox School of Business and Management. Her research interests concern gender and diversity in organizations. Elizabeth Corrigall is an instructor of business at the Pennsylvania State University, Worthington-Scranton Campus. Her research interests include work/family interface and policies for improving work/life balance. Pamela Lieb (Ph.D. , Temple University) is an assistant professor of management at The College of New Jersey. Her research interests include performance appraisal, organizational culture, and discrimination. J. Edgar Ritchie, Jr. is a Ph.D. candidate at Temple University whose research interests include the effects of age on workplace attitudes and behaviors, discrimination, and privacy issues.


Group & Organization Management - CiteSeerX

Group & Organization Management - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents

Group & Organization Management - CiteSeerX

Management Group & Organization

Management Group & Organization

Management Group & Organization

Management Group & Organization

Management Group & Organization

Group & Organization Management

Management Members and Group Organization

Management Group & Organization - Google Sites

Group & Organization Management Call for ... - Samford University

Group & Organization Management Call for ... - Samford University

Group Information Management - CiteSeerX

Group & Organization

Group & Organization

Group & Organization

Group & Organization

Organization - Virtual Organization Management Institute

learning organization or knowledge management - CiteSeerX

Management, Organization and Human Nature - CiteSeerX

Organization - Virtual Organization Management Institute

Organization - Virtual Organization Management Institute

Strategic Management and Organization Development ... - CiteSeerX

Organization - Virtual Organization Management Institute