Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33 (2009), 463–474. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Printed in the USA. C 2009 Division 35, American Psychological Association. 0361-6843/09 Copyright
MORE THAN NUMBERS: INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN HOW GENDER DIVERSITY AFFECTS WOMEN’S WELL-BEING Kathi Miner-Rubino Texas A & M University
Isis H. Settles Michigan State University
Abigail J. Stewart University of Michigan
This study examined factors related to workplace gender diversity in a sample of 87 college-educated White women. Specifically, we investigated the moderating effects of one individual difference variable (sensitivity to sexism) and one contextual variable (perceptions of the workplace climate) in the relationship between the gender composition at the hierarchical level above the woman and her well-being (job satisfaction and general health). Results indicated that more negative well-being was associated with having more women working at the level above when women worked in a perceived negative climate whereas more positive well-being was associated with having more women working at the level above when women worked in a perceived positive climate. For general health, these findings were stronger for women who were also sensitive to sexism. Implications for research on gender diversity in work organizations are discussed.
In a review of 40 years of diversity research, Williams and O’Reilly (1998) concluded that the increasingly diverse workforce is one of the most important challenges facing organizations. For example, 60% of American women over age 16 are currently employed, up almost 20% from 1970 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). Because of the influx of women into the workforce in the past few decades, researchers have begun to examine how gender diversity— the proportion of men and women in the workplace— influences important outcomes for organizations and employees. Research examining the direct effect of gender diversity on outcomes is mixed, however. Some research indicates that gender proportions in the workplace have important consequences for employees (e.g., Burke & McKeen, 1996), and other research shows little effect of working in a gender-diverse environment (e.g., Riordan & Shore, 1997). This inconsistency may be because most research has examined only the direct effects of gender diver-
Kathi Miner-Rubino, Department of Psychology, Women’s and Gender Studies Program, Texas A&M University; Isis H. Settles, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University; Abigail J. Stewart, Department of Psychology, Women’s Studies Program, University of Michigan. Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Kathi MinerRubino, 12 Legett Hall, TAMU 4355, College Station, TX 778434355. E-mail:
[email protected]
sity on outcomes, without explicating possible intervening variables (although there have been a few exceptions, e.g., Cohen & Swim, 1995; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). The goal of this study was to theorize and empirically test hypotheses about the potential moderating roles of one contextual feature (the workplace climate) and one individual characteristic (sensitivity to sexism) in the relationship between gender diversity in the workplace and outcomes for women. Further, we focused on the gender diversity at the hierarchical level above women because the gender composition of more senior organizational members may communicate to women the extent to which the organization values women and their own opportunities for advancement. We approached this study from a relational or relational demography perspective (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989), which refers to the relationship between an individual’s demographic characteristics (such as gender) and those of the group or unit in which they are a member. The premise of this approach is that the relationship between an individual’s demographic characteristics and the demographic characteristics of those in their environment (e.g., dyad, workgroup, organization) will influence the individual’s experience in that environment. For example, the experience of a woman in a workgroup composed of all women would be very different from the experience of that same woman in a group of all men. Using this perspective, we developed our hypotheses from Tsui and Gutek’s (1999) theoretical model of demographic diversity in organizations. However, we also extended their model by considering how elements 463
464 of women’s social power and status influence the relationships we assessed. We tested our hypotheses in a secondary analysis of data from a sample of college-educated White women.
Theoretical Foundation In their theoretical model of diversity in organizations, Tsui and Gutek (1999) proposed a comprehensive framework for how diversity affects outcomes, including mediators and moderators of the diversity-outcome relationship. Tsui and Gutek (1999) suggested that a lack of organizational diversity has negative consequences for employees when they are a numerical minority. They based this proposition on social categorization theory (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987), which proposes that the desire for high self-esteem motivates a social comparison of the self with others. Individuals identify themselves and others as members of social categories using salient demographic characteristics. By viewing one’s group as favorable compared to others, individual group members are theorized to increase their level of self-esteem. Any individual attribute that is underrepresented in a group is especially likely to become salient and, therefore, used as a basis of categorization (Kanter, 1977). Research shows that visible characteristics, such as gender, are often used for categorization, especially when the gender composition of the group is skewed (Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glas, 1992). In this situation, theory suggests, individuals suffer negative outcomes because of their experience of being the “other” or a member of the “outgroup.” Research shows that individuals also commonly engage in upward social comparison, or the tendency to compare oneself to others with higher status and power (Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002). Because of this tendency, women are likely aware of the proportion of women and men in higher hierarchical levels of their work organization. In line with social categorization theory and Tsui and Gutek’s (1999) model of diversity in organizations, many empirical findings have shown that being a gender minority in the workplace can have debilitating effects for women. For example, research indicates that women working in male-skewed work contexts experience more social isolation and sexist stereotyping (Holahan, 1979; Konrad, Winter, & Gutek, 1992), increased absenteeism and lessened psychological commitment to the workplace (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992), and lower psychological and occupational well-being (Burke & McKeen, 1996; Jackson, Thoits, & Taylor, 1995; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006; Wharton & Baron, 1987). At the same time, however, other research shows no direct effect of gender proportions in the workplace on outcomes for women (e.g., Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998; O’Reilly, Williams, & Barsade, 1997; Pelled et al., 1999; Riordan & Shore, 1997). The lack of consistent findings regarding gender diversity may be because little research has examined factors that may moderate the relationship between work-
MINER-RUBINO ET AL. place gender proportions and well-being. As part of their theoretical model, Tsui and Gutek (1999) proposed that aspects of the organization may be one such moderating factor. They specifically argued that an organization’s “diversity climate” (i.e., employees’ perceptions of efforts made by employers to promote diversity) may be an important component in how diversity affects employee well-being. Other researchers (e.g., Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) have also emphasized the need to examine possible contextual, and also individual difference factors, in the demographic diversity-to-outcome relationship. We followed these recommendations in the present study by examining two factors that may moderate the relationship between gender proportions in the workplace and well-being outcomes for women: women’s sensitivity to sexism and the workplace climate. The moderators we examined in this study are connected in that both are relevant to women’s power and status in the larger societal context. Indeed, many feminist organizational researchers (e.g., Acker, 1990, 2006; Martin, 1990; Kanter, 1977; Reskin, 2003; Ridgeway, 1997) have argued that women’s experiences in organizations reflect not simply the characteristics of women themselves, but also societal and cultural structures and ideologies about women’s position in society. As such, organizations are a primary location of power and status where social inequality is maintained, influencing how people experience their work lives. Consequently, we both empirically tested and extended Tsui and Gutek’s (1999) framework of demographic diversity in organizations by examining aspects of the organizational context and aspects of the individual that are linked with women’s perception of their social position and value within the organization. Thus, both contextual and individual difference factors may affect how gender diversity at higher organizational levels is experienced by women.
Gender Diversity and Hierarchical Level In this study, we specifically focused on women’s perceptions of gender diversity in the hierarchical level above them because this level may be most informative regarding the status of women in the organization. Kanter (1977) was perhaps the first to argue that gender demographic patterns might have different meanings for individuals at different hierarchical levels. For example, if women are numerous in low levels of the hierarchy but scarce at upper levels, women at middle levels may assume that their opportunities for advancement will be limited. Using similar reasoning, Elvira and Cohen (2001) suggested that the presence of women at the level above a female employee may be an indicator of promotion opportunities and women’s comfort in higher-level positions. However, they found that lowranking women were more likely to leave the organization
Gender Diversity when there were a greater proportion of women, compared to men, in high-level positions. They concluded that, under some conditions, low-ranking women might feel that the presence of women in higher-level positions would limit their own opportunities for success. In contrast, Ely (1994) found that work experiences of lower-level women were more positive when there were many women in senior positions. These inconsistent findings suggest that hierarchical levels play an important role in how gender diversity is experienced, but there may be additional variables to consider in making predictions about the impact of gender diversity.
Workplace Climate The workplace climate, a characteristic of the context, may have a direct impact on women’s outcomes. Further, it may be an important moderator in the relationship between gender diversity and well-being. This contextual cue can be diagnostic of the degree to which the organization values difference and diversity (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). We included three aspects of the workplace climate: the degree to which the workplace allows autonomy, is intolerant of sexual harassment, and is inclusive. These three elements each uniquely represent the degree to which individuals are afforded status and power in the organization. Workplace autonomy is the extent to which an individual believes he or she can directly affect the work environment. Spector (1986) reported that perceived control at work was significantly related to high levels of job satisfaction and low levels of physical symptoms. Research also shows a large gender gap in workplace autonomy, with women at a disadvantage (Huffman, 1995). Sexual harassment is another indicator of the workplace climate; it is typically directed at women by men (Koss et al., 1994) and is theorized to be a means of socially controlling and having power over women (MacKinnon, 1987). Empirical research has repeatedly shown the deleterious effects of sexual harassment for women who have experienced it (Buchanan, Settles, & Woods, 2008; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Koss, 1993; Morrow, McElroy, & Phillips, 1994; Settles et al., 2006). Finally, the degree to which an organization is inclusive reflects its acceptance of the diversity of organizational members. Women’s reports of inclusion can also capture the degree to which the organization values gender diversity, because such inclusion provides women access to information and resources (Mor-Barak & Cherin, 1998; Pelled, Ledford, & Mohrman, 1999). Together, we used these variables—the degree to which the workplace allows autonomy, is intolerant of sexual harassment, and is inclusive—to constitute women’s perceptions of the organization’s climate in our study. Our conceptualization of the climate as a combination of these three dimensions of the work environment is similar to the one proposed by Major and Davis (2007), who found that inclusive work-
465 place climates were related to higher job satisfaction for employees. There is evidence that contextual variables, such as workplace climate, may be important moderators in the relationship between gender diversity and outcomes. For example, Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neale (1998) found that the degree of inclusiveness and cooperativeness of the organizational context moderated the relationship between demographic diversity and outcomes. Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2004) found that working in an organizational climate that is permissive of harassment was related to declines in physical health satisfaction for employees, particularly those who worked in male-skewed groups. Other research shows that women are less socially integrated than men into male-dominated workgroups and, as a result, are likely to experience more social isolation (Kanter, 1977; O’Leary & Ickovics, 1992). These studies suggest that the workplace climate and gender ratios can combine to influence outcomes for women.
Sensitivity to Sexism Sensitivity to gender inequities in society, an individual difference dimension, may be one moderator in the relationship between gender diversity (at the hierarchical level above women) and well-being outcomes. We proposed that women who are sensitive to sexism would be most influenced by the degree of gender diversity at higher levels. Demographic characteristics of workgroups, such as gender, may act as signals or cues about the organization that employees use to diagnose the values and priorities of the organization (Ashford, Dutton, & Edwards, 2002; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Reskin et al., 1999). As such, women who are highly sensitive to gender imbalances should be especially likely to notice and be negatively affected by such demographic cues (i.e., the over- or underrepresentation of women). For example, women who are very sensitive to gender inequality in the larger societal context may be less satisfied with their jobs when the gender composition of the hierarchical level above them is dominated by males, rather than females, because it may signal to them men’s greater power in that organization.
The Current Study Taken together, we theorized a complex relationship among our variables of interest based on theories of demographic diversity (e.g., Tsui & Gutek, 1999) and social power (e.g., Acker, 1990, 2006). We proposed that climates that are more negative should be directly related to women’s outcomes, but are also those in which we expect the effect of gender diversity to be strongest, because such climates communicate to women that they are not valued within the organization. Further, we predicted that women who are sensitive to sexism should attend more to cues about gender diversity and workplace climate and, as a result, be more impacted by demographic patterns. We chose two
466
MINER-RUBINO ET AL.
outcome variables that were available in the existing data set and that were linked with gender diversity in past research: job satisfaction and general health. The inclusion of these two variables allowed us to examine the extent to which the workplace factors we assessed related to proximal, job-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction) as well as distal, general outcomes (e.g., general health) for women. Indeed, when women perceive that they are excluded and disrespected in their work organization, they may begin to not only feel less satisfied with their job but experience more broad negative effects such as declines in their general health (e.g., increased illness and fatigue). A summary of our predictions is below.
Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Climates that are perceived as more negative will be related to more negative outcomes (i.e., less job satisfaction and worse physical health). Hypothesis 2: There will be a three-way interaction of gender diversity at higher levels by workplace climate by sensitivity to sexism on job satisfaction and general health. Specifically, women who are sensitive to sexism and work in a perceived negative climate will report lower job satisfaction and worse health than women in all other groups when the hierarchical level above them is male-dominated compared to when it includes many women. METHOD
Participants and Procedure Data for the current study come from the fourth and final wave of a longitudinal study started by Sandra Tangri in 1967 (Tangri, 1972) to examine women’s career development, personal relationships, attitudes, health, and wellbeing across the life span. In the first wave, Tangri (1972) selected a stratified random sample of 200 senior undergraduate female students from a Midwestern university to participate in a “Women’s Life Path Study.” In 1992, Tangri and the third author conducted the fourth follow-up of this sample (n = 107), 82% of whom reported working in a situation where there was a clear hierarchal level above them. Thus, the final sample for the present study consisted of 87 White women. Of these women, 81% were married, 72% had children currently living at home, and their average age was 47 years old. Sixty percent were employed full time, 26% were employed part time, 14% were homemakers, and 2% were students. They were in the following job categories (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958): 40% minor professional (e.g., high school teacher, registered nurse), 28% administrative workers (e.g., certified public accountant), 18% major professional (e.g., doctor, engineer), and 7% sales, clerical, or technical (e.g., legal secretary, customer service); their mean annual income was $30,000–$40,000.
Measures Gender diversity/hierarchical level. One question assessed gender diversity in the higher hierarchical level of the respondents’ workplace (or previous workplace, if not currently employed). Participants were asked to indicate the composition of men and women in the rank or position above them using a scale ranging from 1 (all or mostly men) to 3 (all or mostly women). This measure of diversity is similar to that used by Gruber (1998) and Ragins, Singh, and Cornwell (2007). Workplace climate. The workplace climate was measured with three questions assessing women’s perceived autonomy, experience of sexual harassment, and perceived inclusion in the workplace. Autonomy was assessed with the question, “When you don’t like something that goes on at work how often can you do something to change it?” using a response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Sexual harassment was measured with the question, “Have you ever experienced unwanted touching, pressure for sexual favors, sexually suggestive looks, gestures, sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions, or received letters, phone calls or materials of a sexual matter?” using a no/yes response format. Finally, workplace inclusion was assessed with the question, “Do you think you have missed opportunities because of not being informed, or being misinformed, about job openings?” using a no/yes response format. We combined these items to form an index representing how positive women’s perceptions were of the workplace climate. Women who reported that they had experienced sexual harassment, missed work opportunities, and could never or rarely change things at work received a score of 1 (extremely negative) on the index. Women who reported that they either experienced harassment or missed opportunities (but not both) and could never, rarely, or sometimes change things at work received a 2 (negative) on the index. Women who reported that they neither experienced harassment nor missed opportunities but that they could never, rarely, or sometimes change things received a 3 (positive) on the index. Finally, women who reported no harassment, not missing opportunities, and that they could usually or always change workplace circumstances received a 4 (extremely positive) on the index. Thus, high scores on this measure represent perceptions of a more positive climate. Combining these three dimensions into a measure of the workplace climate parallels the approach used to study climate by Major and Davis (2007). Sensitivity to sexism. Sensitivity to sexism was measured using a subscale of the Feminist Identity Scale (Downing & Roush, 1985; Juntunen, Atkinson, Reyes, & Gutierrez, 1994; Rickard, 1990). This subscale (termed “Revelation” in the original instrument) assesses the extent to which the respondent is sensitive to and cognizant of sexism in society. Respondents indicate the degree to which they agree with
Gender Diversity
467 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for All Study Variables
Variable 1. Gender composition 2. Sensitivity to sexism 3. Climate perceptions 4. Job satisfaction 5. General health 6. Yearly salary 7. Occupational sector 8. Negative disposition
M
SD
2.00 2.00 2.69 3.14 4.11 3.84 53.52 1.88
1.00 0.69 0.89 0.65 0.93 2.65 22.35 .42
1 −.18 .13 −.06 −.01 −.36∗∗ .19 −.19
2
3
−.36∗∗ −.04 −.05 .28∗ −.13 .32∗∗
.24∗ .07 −.09 .15 −.29∗∗
4
5
.03 .33∗ .06 −.03
.10 −.16 −.24∗
6
−.51∗∗ −.02
7
.04
Note. N = 87. For gender composition, a higher score equals more women. For the climate variable, a higher score equals perceptions of a more positive climate. For occupational sector, a higher percentage equals a more female-dominated field. ∗ p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .001.
14 statements describing attitudes about being a woman in society using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items include, “Gradually, I am beginning to see just how sexist society is” and “Women have less political and personal power than men.” Higher scores on this measure represent more sensitivity to sexism. Research shows this subscale has good internal reliability, with alphas ranging from .78 (Fisher et al., 2000) to .85 (Juntunen et al., 1994). The convergent validity of this measure has also been documented (Fisher et al., 2000; Moradi & Subich, 2002). Internal reliability of this measure in the present study was .85. Well-being outcomes. Well-being was assessed with measures of job satisfaction and general health. Job satisfaction was measured with the item, “In general, how satisfied are you with your current job?” Respondents answered using a scale ranging from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 4 (very satisfied). Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy’s (1997) meta-analysis showed that single-item job satisfaction measures possess good convergent validity with scales of overall job satisfaction. General health was measured with one item assessing participants’ perceived general state of health, “How would you rate your general state of health in the last twelve months?” Respondents answered using a scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Single-item measures of perceived health have also been found to be reliable and valid (O’Brien Cousins, 1997), related to objective measures of health (Pinquart, 2001), and to predict future health outcomes (Idler & Benyamini, 1997). Control variables. Following Burke and McKeen (1996), we included salary (1 = under 20K to 11 = 140K and up) as a proxy for participants’ status in the organizational hierarchy as a control in all analyses. We also controlled for the percentage of women in the participants’ occupational sector to ensure that the effects of gender diversity on the outcome variables were not actually due to participants working in male- versus female-dominated fields. This information was obtained from 1990 U.S. Census data
with percentages ranging from 16% women (e.g., medicine) to 98% women (e.g., education). Finally, research shows that participants with dispositionally negative affect may answer questions with a pessimistic slant (Judge & Hulin, 1993; Levin & Stokes, 1989). To address this possibility, we included a measure of negative disposition as a control variable with the purpose of removing this individual response bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Negative disposition was measured using five items (e.g., “Have you been bothered by nervousness?” using a 1 = never to 4 = nearly all the time response scale) that make up the anxiety subscale of the Veroff Twenty Symptoms Scale (Veroff, Kulka, & Douvan, 1981).
RESULTS Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all study variables. We conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses to test the hypotheses.1 To correct for multicollinearity that often accompanies testing moderating relationships, we centered the gender diversity, sensitivity to sexism, and perceived climate variables before multiplicatively computing interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991); Variance Inflation Factors less than 1.33 and Tolerance indices greater than .75 confirmed that multicollinearity was not a concern in the analyses. The control variables (i.e., salary, occupational sector, and negative disposition) and the predictor variables (i.e., gender diversity in the level above, sensitivity to sexism, and perceived workplace climate) were entered in Step 1, all two-way interactions were entered in Step 2, and the three-way interaction (gender diversity × sensitivity to sexism × workplace climate) was entered in Step 3. The results of these analyses appear in Table 2.
Perceptions of Workplace Climate on Well-Being Outcomes In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that women would report more negative outcomes (i.e., less job satisfaction and worse
468
MINER-RUBINO ET AL.
Table 2 General Health and Job Satisfaction Predicted by Gender Composition, Sensitivity to Sexism, Workplace Climate, and Their Interactions General Health Variable Yearly salary Occupational sector Negative disposition Gender composition Sensitivity to sexism Climate perceptions Gender comp × sensitivity to sexism Gender comp × climate Sen to sexism × climate Gen comp × sen to sex × climate R2 F
Job Satisfaction
Step 1 B (β)
Step 2 B (β)
Step 3 B (β)
Step 1 B (β)
Step 2 B (β)
−.01(−.02) −.01(−.15) −.54(−.24)† −.20(−.10) .01(.01) .04(.04)
.01(.01) −.01(−.10) −.54(−.24)† −.23(−.12) .02(−.01) −.13(−.13) −.12(−.08)
.01(.02) −.01(−.12) −.59(−.27)† −.04(.02) .08(.06) −.06(−.06) −.11(−.08)
.13(.54)∗∗ .01(.27)∗ .11(.07) .12(.09) −.07(−.07) .16(.22)∗
.14(.55)∗∗ .01(.28)∗ .10(.06) .12(.09) −.06(−.06) .06(.08) .09(.09)
.13(.54)∗∗ .01(.30)∗ .11(.07) .02(.02) −.09(−.09) .03(.04) .09(.09)
.40(.24) .20(.18)
.23(.13) −.15(−.11) 1.04(.42)∗∗
.30(.24)† .03(.03)
.36(.28)∗ .03(.15) −.36(−.20)
.03 .94
.02 1.91
.09 1.04
.07 1.76
.09∗∗ 7.34∗∗
.24∗∗ 3.43∗∗
Step 3 B (β)
† p < .10. ∗ p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .01.
health) the more they perceived their workplace climate as negative. This hypothesis was partially supported; as shown in Table 1, perceptions of the workplace climate were significantly related to job satisfaction. Women who worked in an organization with a perceived negative climate reported being less satisfied with their jobs than women who worked in a climate that was perceived as positive. The regression results (described below) corroborate this finding. However, workplace climate perceptions were unrelated to general health, both in the correlation analyses and the multiple regression analyses.
Sensitivity to Sexism and Workplace Climate as Moderators of the Relationship Between Gender Diversity and Well-Being In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that women who were sensitive to sexism and worked in a perceived negative climate would report lower job satisfaction and worse health than women in all other groups when the hierarchical level above them was male dominated compared to when it included many women. As shown in Table 2, there was a three-way interaction of gender diversity in the level above by sensitivity to sexism by perceived workplace climate for women on general health, which accounted for an additional 9% of the variance in this outcome above the covariates, the main effect variables, and the two-way interactions (see Table 2). To examine the nature of the relationships, the interaction was graphed (see Figure 1), and simple slope analyses were conducted using conditional values for sensitivity to sexism and the workplace climate that were calculated to be one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean (Aiken & West, 1991).
In contrast to Hypothesis 2, women who were high on sensitivity to sexism and perceived their workplace climate as negative reported lower general health levels when they worked in an organization with many women (rather than men as predicted) in the level above them, B = −.76, β = −.72, SE = .26, p < .01. In addition, women who were highly sensitive to sexism and perceived their workplace climate as positive for women reported higher levels of general health when there were many women in the hierarchical level above them than when the level above them was numerically dominated by men, B = .55, β = .52, SE = .35, p < .05. For women who were not sensitive to sexism and worked in a perceived negative climate for women, B = .33, β = .31, SE = .32, ns, or a perceived positive climate for women, B = −.27, β = −.25, SE = .26, ns, general health was not related to the gender composition at the level above them. Further, results from follow-up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests showed that, when the level above them comprised all or mostly women, women sensitive to sexism in perceived negative climates reported the worst health compared to women in the other groups, and women sensitive to sexism in perceived positive climates reported the highest health levels compared to women in the other groups, F = 10.99, η2 = .55, p < .01. Women’s general health levels did not differ as a function of perceived climate or sexism sensitivity when the level above was numerically dominated by men, F = 2.95, η2 = .07, ns. For job satisfaction, there was a significant two-way interaction between the gender composition in the level above the participant and workplace climate perceptions. Specifically, women with positive climate perceptions reported higher job satisfaction when the level above comprised mostly women compared to when it comprised
Gender Diversity
469
6
General Health
5
4
High Sensitivity in Positive Climate Low Sensitivity in Positive Climate High Sensitivity in Negative Climate Low Sensitivity in Negative Climate
3
2
1 All/Mostly Men
Equal
All/Mostly Women
Gender Proportion Above
Fig. 1. Gender Proportions × Sensitivity to Sexism × Perceived Climate Interaction on General Health. 4
Job Satisfaction
3
Positive Climate Negative Climate
2
1 All/Mostly Men
Equal
All/Mostly Women
Gender Proportion Above
Fig. 2. Gender Proportions × Perceived Climate Interaction on Job Satisfaction.
mostly men, B = .22, β = .29, SE = .11, p < .05; see Figure 2. However, for women who worked in a perceived negative climate, the proportion of men and women in the level above them had no effect on job satisfaction, B = −.17, β = −22, SE = .12, ns. In addition, follow-up ANCOVA tests showed that, when the level above included many women, women with positive climate perceptions reported significantly higher job satisfaction than women with negative climate perceptions, F = 16.07, η2 = .53,
p < .001. However, when the level above comprised mostly men, there was no difference in the effect of climate on job satisfaction, F = 3.71, η2 = .07, ns.
Summary of Significant Findings Results indicated that negative climate perceptions related directly to lower job satisfaction. In addition, participants reported lower general health levels when they were sensitive to gender inequities, the workplace climate was
470
MINER-RUBINO ET AL.
perceived negatively, and there were many women in the hierarchical level above them compared to when men numerically dominated the level above; these women also reported the lowest health levels of any group. Women who were sensitive to gender inequities and worked in a perceived positive climate reported better general health when women were numerous in the level above them compared to when the level above was male dominated; this group also reported the highest general health levels compared to women in the other groups. In addition, participants reported higher job satisfaction when they perceived the workplace climate as positive and there were many women in the level above compared to many men above; women with positive climate perceptions also reported higher satisfaction compared to women with negative climate perceptions in contexts where women were plentiful in the level above. All of these results held after controlling for salary, occupational sector, and negative disposition. DISCUSSION Most research on gender diversity in the workplace has examined the direct effect of gender proportions on outcomes without examining variables that might influence that relationship. The purpose of this study was to theorize and empirically test two moderators of the relationship between gender diversity in the workplace and well-being outcomes for women based on the theoretical model of demographic diversity in organizations developed by Tsui and Gutek (1999). We also extended their model by examining moderators specific to women’s position in the larger societal context (Acker, 1990, 2006). Specifically, we investigated the moderating roles of workplace climate and sensitivity to sexism in this relationship and focused solely on gender diversity at higher organizational levels. We found support for our first hypothesis in that more negative climate perceptions were related to lower job satisfaction. This finding is consistent with other research on the impact of climate on employees’ job satisfaction (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999; Settles et al., 2006). A climate that is negative may be one in which female employees feel excluded, disrespected, and even physically unsafe. When work environments include such characteristics, women may feel stressed and may also perceive their organization as having barriers preventing the career success of female employees. Thus, the workplace climate plays a central role in setting the tone, perceptions, and expectations for employees. Importantly, perceptions of the workplace climate also moderated the relationship between gender diversity and well-being outcomes, which we describe below. In contrast to our second hypothesis, women who were cognizant of sexism in society and worked in a perceived negative climate showed the lowest levels of general health when women were numerous in the level above them; we had predicted that these women would be most negatively affected when the level above was male dominated. Thus,
even when there were many women in positions above them, these women showed the largest detriments in wellbeing when working in an environment that was unwelcoming for women. These findings suggest that the very presence of women in higher-ranking positions under such negative conditions may signal that something has gone wrong. Under these circumstances, women may feel hopeless that they will ever be positively valued in their workplace. They may also feel that these higher-level women have sold out and become “one of the guys,” concerned only with their personal success (regardless of how women are treated) rather than with the women following in their path. Lower-level women may also be less able to attribute their negative work environment to sexist upper-level men in this context, which could lead to feelings of group or individual blame. Finally, these women may feel that their higher-status counterparts are doing nothing to change the climate for women, even though they might have the power to do so. Consistent with these ideas, research shows that female leaders in masculine organizational contexts or those who take on stereotypical male characteristics and behaviors are perceived especially negatively (Korabik & Ayman, 1989). That senior women in male-dominated contexts are simply more salient may further amplify these perceptions (Hysom & Johnson, 2006; Ridgeway, 1988). Results also showed that women who were sensitive to sexism in society and worked in a perceived positive climate reported higher health levels when the hierarchal level above them included many women compared to when women were scarce. Women also reported higher job satisfaction when women were numerous in the level above and they perceived the workplace climate positively versus negatively, regardless of how sensitive they were to sexism. Indeed, some previous research suggests that the presence of women in higher positions may signal that the organization is fair and equitable for women (Ely, 1994). Our findings suggest that working in an organization where women are included and treated respectfully may be necessary for women to form these perceptions. There were some differences in the relationships for the two outcomes we examined. Specifically, climate perceptions were directly related to job satisfaction but unrelated to general health. Additionally, both climate perceptions and sensitivity to sexism moderated the relationship between gender composition and health, but only climate moderated the relationship between gender composition and job satisfaction. The reasons for these differences are not known. It may be that women who are more aware of sexism in society may be less able to compartmentalize their negative responses to these aspects of their work environment compared to women who are less sensitive to gender inequity. This may lead sexism-sensitive women to somatize their stress and anxiety, resulting in their having a sense of poorer health. Alternatively, job satisfaction may be especially sensitive to the workplace climate, as it is more closely related to job experiences than is health.
Gender Diversity As a result, women may not require the ability to notice gender inequality to have their job satisfaction affected by their work experiences. More research is needed to establish when and why sexism perceptions are related to gender composition and well-being. Our findings only partly supported Tsui and Gutek’s (1999) theoretical model of diversity in organizations. In line with their theory, our results suggest that workplace diversity has important consequences for employees and that the workplace climate is a key factor in this relationship. In fact, we found women’s perceptions of the workplace climate to be a more extensive moderator of gender diversity and outcomes than women’s sensitivity to sexism, as climate perceptions moderated the diversity–outcome relationship for both proximal (job satisfaction) and distal (general health) outcomes. In contrast to their model, and the basic tenets of social categorization theory (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987), our results also showed that working in a context where women numerically dominate is not always positive for other women. Thus, simply categorizing oneself as a woman and noticing that women are well represented at higher levels in the organization does not seem to result in the positive outcomes suggested by social comparison theory. Instead, women appear to benefit by the prevalence of women in higher organizational levels only when the workplace climate is positive.
Implications for Organizations These findings have clear implications for organizations and the female employees in them. First, the findings of this study suggest that contextual and individual difference variables are important factors in the relationship between workplace gender diversity and well-being outcomes for women. Thus, the tendency for organizations to simply “add women and stir” (Martin & Meyerson, 1988, p. 312) may not be enough to recruit and retain female employees. The workplace climate appears to be an especially important indicator of the degree to which the organization values diversity and respects women. Thus, organizations committed to increasing the diversity of their workforce would be well served by engaging in organizational activities that encourage inclusion, respect, and agency for all employees.
Limitations and Future Research This study has a number of limitations that should be noted. First, it is unclear exactly where the respondents fell in their organization’s hierarchy. The respondents simply reported the proportion of men and women at the hierarchical level above them. This approach could be problematic for making interpretations about the gender composition in “high-level” positions. For example, it is possible that for very low-ranking women, the level “above them” may be another low-level job with little power; thus, gender proportions at any given level depend on the women’s own rank in the hierarchy (Elvira & Cohen, 2001). It is also possible
471 that women in low-ranking positions are unlikely to view high-level executive jobs as realistic and women in executive positions may be too distant to affect the everyday work lives of lower-level women (Elvira & Cohen, 2001). Thus, the proportion of women in top-level positions may be too far removed from low-level women to be meaningful. Because this study relied on secondary data analysis, we were also limited in the assessments available. Thus, our measures were not ideal operationalizations of our constructs of interest. The variables assessing the workplace climate served as a proxy for the overarching climate of the organization. Rather than representing the broader climate, however, these variables might actually be assessing the climate at the organizational level to which the respondent is most exposed. For example, a female secretary working for a group of higher-level men may have more exposure to how women are treated in higher organizational levels than how women are treated in other secretarial positions or the organization at large. Further, the indicators used to assess the workplace climate do not necessarily tap aspects of the climate that uniquely affect women. Certainly men can be sexually harassed, excluded, and given little autonomy; research suggests, however, that these aspects of the workplace climate may be more relevant for women (e.g., Koss et al., 1994). In addition, our measure of gender diversity did not differentiate between different organizational contexts such as the entire organization at the level above the participant compared to the more specific team, department, or unit in which she was embedded. Our measures of job satisfaction and general health were only one item each, which can led to problems with validity and reliability. However, others have found that single-item measures of these constructs converge well with multi-item and objective measures (O’Brien Cousins, 1997; Pinquart, 2001; Wanous et al., 1997). Even so, future investigations should also employ more established measures of the constructs we assessed. Future research should also assess gender diversity and the workplace climate more generally and/or at specific hierarchical levels. The data used for this study were collected over a decade ago; therefore caution should be used when generalizing our findings to women’s experiences of gender diversity in more current organizational settings. Indeed, women may be more accepted and welcomed in the workplace today than in the past. Even so, we believe that the workplace climate and sensitivity to inequity remain relevant to understanding the relationship between gender diversity and well-being for women who are presently working. More recent research (e.g., Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Settles et al., 2006) suggests that these factors continue to influence how women experience their work lives. A further limitation of this study is that data were derived from self-reports, which may introduce the possibility of common method bias. To address this issue, future research might include coworker assessments of the
472
MINER-RUBINO ET AL.
workplace context. Finally, our findings are based on the experiences of educated White women. As such, our findings may not apply to less-educated women or women of color. Because White women are more likely to socialize with White men (who usually hold top positions) than are women of color (who usually hold lower-level positions), they are also more likely to be included in higher-ranking organizational networks and to turn to higher-status men for advice and instrumental support (Ibarra, 1992). White women may also engage in what Merton (1968, as described in Kanter, 1977) calls anticipatory socialization, an upward comparison that employees make when they perceive their advancement opportunities to be good. Because of these distinctive experiences created by the intersection of race and gender, White women and women of color may be differentially affected by gender diversity in their work organization, especially at hierarchal levels above them.
Conclusion The results from this study suggest that how workplace gender diversity affects women’s well-being is far from straightforward. A woman’s sensitivity to gender inequities and perceptions of the workplace climate appear to be important factors that influence how gender diversity is perceived and experienced by women in organizations. These findings add to the literature on diversity in the workplace by documenting the unique ways women experience work and gender relations within organizational contexts. The next step is to extend these findings further with investigations of how differences among women, such as those based on race, ethnicity, social class, and sexuality, influence their experience of gender diversity at work and resulting health and well-being. Initial submission: July 8, 2008 Initial acceptance: March 16, 2009 Final acceptance: June 8, 2009
NOTE 1. We also conducted the analyses with only those women who were employed full-time. The results were unchanged.
REFERENCES Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441–464. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ashford, S. J., Dutton, J. E., & Edwards, J. R. (2002). Exercising voice: The impact of perceived gender proportions on willingness to raise gender-equity issues. Unpublished manuscript.
Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., & Woods, K. C. (2008). Comparing sexual harassment subtypes among Black and White women by military rank: Double jeopardy, the Jezebel, and the cult of true womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 347–361. Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Do women at the top make a difference? Gender proportions and the experiences of managerial and professional women. Human Relations, 49, 1093–1104. Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749–780. Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 876–884. Downing, N. E., & Roush, K. L. (1985). From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women. Counseling Psychologist, 13, 695– 709. Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13, 355–369. Elvira, M. M., & Cohen, L. E. (2001). Location matters: A crosslevel analysis of the effects of organizational sex composition on turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 591–605. Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203–238. Fisher, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Mergl, M. M., Good, G. E., Hill, M. S., & Blum, S. A. (2000). Assessing women’s feminist identity development: Studies of convergent, discriminant, and structural validity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 15–29. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578– 589. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Magley, V. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the Armed Forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology, 11, 329–343. Gruber, J. E. (1998). The impact of male work environments and organizational policies on women’s experiences of sexual harassment. Gender & Society, 12, 301–320. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 28– 48. Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes towards affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036.
Gender Diversity Holahan, C. K. (1979). Stress experienced by women doctoral students, need for support, and occupational sex typing: An interactional view. Sex Roles, 5, 425–436. Hollingshead, A., & Redlich, C. (1958). Social class and mental illness: A community study. New York: Wiley. Huffman, M. L. (1995). Organizations, internal labor marker policies, and gender inequality in workplace supervisory authority. Sociological Perspectives, 38, 381–397. Hysom, S. J., & Johnson, C. (2006). Leadership structures in same-sex task groups. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 391– 410. Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447. Idler, E., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of 27 community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37. Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A., & Taylor, H. F. (1995). Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Black elite. Social Forces, 74, 543–557. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 56, 388– 421. Juntunen, C. L., Atkinson, D. R., Reyes, C., & Gutierrez, M. (1994). Feminist identity and feminist therapy behaviors of women psychotherapists. Psychotherapy, 31, 327–333. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Konrad, A., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. (1992). Diversity in work group sex composition. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10, 115–140. Korabik, K., & Ayman, R. (1989). Should women managers have to act like men? Journal of Management Development, 8, 23–32. Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., Keita, G. P., & Russo, N. F. (1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752–758. MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Major, D. A., & Davis, D. D. (2007, April). Antecedents and consequences of inclusive climate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Indusial and Organizational Psychology, New York. Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Women and power: Conformity, resistance, and disorganized coaction. In R. M. Kramer (Ed.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 311–348). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martin, P. Y. (1990). Rethinking feminist organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 182–206. Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 865–875. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social
473 networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 441–452. Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122. Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2002). Feminist identity development measures: Comparing the psychometric of three instruments. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 66–86. Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22, 47–64. Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., & Phillips, C. M. (1994). Sexual harassment behaviors and work related perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 295–309. O’Brien Cousins, S. (1997). Validity and reliability of self-reported health of persons aged 70 and older. Health Care for Women International, 18, 265–274. O’Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1992). Cracking the glass ceiling: Overcoming isolation and alienation. In U. Sekaran & F. Leong (Eds.), Womenpower: Managing in times of demographic turbulence (pp. 7–30). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. O’Reilly, C., Williams, K., & Barsade, S. (1997). Group demography and innovation: Does diversity help? In E. Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research in the management of groups and teams (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1– 28. Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1013–1031. Pinquart, M. (2001). Correlates of subjective health in older adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 16, 414– 426. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879– 903. Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible. Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118. Reskin, B. (2003). Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. American Sociological Review, 68, 1–21. Reskin, B. F., McBrier, D. B., & Kmec, J. A. (1999). The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335–361. Rickard, K. M. (1990). The effect of feminist identity level on gender prejudice toward artists’ illustrations. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 145–162. Ridgeway, C. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235. Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status and legitimacy account. In M. Webster, Jr. & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 188–206). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of
474 relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58. Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A metaanalysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glas, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1207– 1218. Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159–163. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tangri, S. S. (1972). Determinants of occupational role innovation among college women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 177– 199. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 1549–1579.
MINER-RUBINO ET AL. Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects. The importance of relational demography in supervisor-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A selfcategorization theory. New York: Blackwell. U.S. Department of Labor. (2005). Women in the labor force in 2005. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.dol.gov/ wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-05.htm Veroff, J., Kulka, R. A., & Douvan, E. (1981). Mental health in America: Patterns of help-seeking from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. Wharton, A. S., & Baron, J. N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 52, 574–587. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). Fourty years of diversity research: A review. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
