The Effects of Personality Traits on Women’s Advancement in Public Accounting Firms
Frank J. Coglitore Associate Professor Department of Accounting University of St. Thomas Mail #MCN 6010 2115 Summit Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Phone (612) 962-5542 FAX (612) 962-5903 E-Mail
[email protected] Janice Raffield Assistant Professor Department of Accounting University of St. Thomas Mail #MCN 6055 2115 Summit Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Phone (612) 962-5113 FAX (612) 962-5903 E-Mail
[email protected] Section area: Gender Issues
The Effects of Personality Traits on Women’s Advancement in Public Accounting Firms
Section area: Gender Issues
The Effects of Personality Traits on Women’s Advancement in Public Accounting Firms Abstract: This study examines partners perceptions about the influence of stereotypical personality traits on the advancement of women, and whether partners perceptions are consistent with the perceptions of the other professional personnel in the firm. Partners do not perceive a difference in the influence of stereotypical feminine traits and stereotypical masculine traits on women’s advancement. With the exception of male managers, men and women at all other positions perceive a difference in the influence of feminine traits and masculine traits, and the mean ratings for masculine traits were higher, i.e., more beneficial, than for feminine traits. Results also indicate that the perceptions of women about the influence of feminine traits are different than the perceptions of partners, while the perceptions of men are statistically the same as partners. Partners’ ratings of feminine traits were higher, i.e., more beneficial, than the ratings of women at all other positions. Perceptions of both women and men at all other positions about the influence of masculine behaviors are statistically the same as partner’s perceptions.
INTRODUCTION Times have changed from the days when public accounting firms had an excess of highly qualified applicants for entry level positions. In the “White” Paper (1989), the chief executive officers of the former Big Eight accounting firms expressed concern about the declining quantity of accounting graduates. During the same time frame, public accounting firms have increased the range of specialized services provided to clients. These changes have created a need for proportionally more experienced personnel (Abernathy, 1990; AICPA, 1989; Biggs, 1986). Therefore, public accounting firms must take the initiative to retain a higher percentage of the existing talent pool (Collins, 1993). Women earned fifty-three percent of the combined master’s and bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1993-1995 (AICPA, 1996). In 1980, women comprised only 35% of all accounting graduates (AICPA, 1980). During the past fifteen years women’s presence in public accounting has steadily increased until they now represent the majority of new hires. At a time when women comprise the majority of entry level personnel and market imperatives suggest that it is critical for firms to retain their experienced personnel, Hooks and Cheramy (1994) determined that genderrelated turnover differences are most prevalent in the senior-supervisor and manager ranks of the larger CPA firms. It appears that attracting and retaining the brightest women is one of the key challenges facing public accounting firms. Retention of women is multifaceted, consisting primarily of family-related and career advancement issues. While these issues are interconnected, each is distinctly different. CPA firms have focused on family-related programs, such as, flexible hours and day care, to improve retention of women (In Practice, 1993). However, focusing solely on these programs does nothing to create an environment or culture that is conducive to women’s upward mobility (Higham and Libby, 1994). Fifty-five percent of the respondents to a recent American Women’s Society of Certified Public Accountant’s (AWSCPA) membership survey report leaving their job because they had reached or would reach an invisible barrier to career advancement. Seventy-five percent of these respondents were from public accounting firms (Heaton and Simmons, 1994). While some progress has been made, women are still under-represented at the highest levels. This is evidenced by the relatively low percentage of female partners. The most recent data available from the AICPA (1996) reports that women comprise only 7% of the partners in firms with more than 10 members.
Even though female senior managers have recently been promoted to partner in numbers proportionate (twenty-six percent) to their representation in the senior manager ranks, women are not being promoted to partner in numbers representative of their total representation in public accounting. This is because of their disproportionate turnover at the senior-supervisor and manager level (Hooks and Cheramy, 1994). One possible factor explored by prior research is whether women have different personality profiles than their male counterparts. Prior Research Earnest and Lampe (1982) and Johnson and Dierks (1982) found no differences in the personality profiles of male and female accountants. In contrast to these earlier studies, Davidson and Dalby (1993) found that the overall personality profiles of male and female accountants are significantly different (five of sixteen primary factors). They found that women are more likely to be self-reliant, skeptical, practical, and are more socially precise with a stronger sense of self-image, while men are more likely to be self-assured. This study also found that males and females shared many common personality characteristics (six of sixteen primary factors). Both female and male accountants are very intelligent, assertive, enthusiastic, self-sufficient, open-minded, and hard driving. Davidson and Dalby (1993) also investigated differences among women based on their position, and found that the personality profiles of female staff and seniors compared to female managers and partners are not significantly different. While Davidson and Dalby (1993) examined overall personality profiles, Maupin (1990) examined one aspect of personality. Maupin identified the sex-type (feminine, masculine, androgynous or undifferentiated)[1] of 461 CPAs using the 60-item Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). An individual’s sex type is determined based on their responses to the series of items in the inventory. The BSRI has been used in numerous studies and has proven validity and reliability (Schmitt and Millard, 1988; Ballard-Reisch and Elton, 1992).
The sex-types for the
participants in Maupin’s study are shown in Figure 1. “take in Figure 1” While Maupin’s study was not longitudinal, it is interesting to note in Figure 1 that, in general, feminine behaviors decrease at each successive level until none exist at the partner level. Historically, the stereotype of an accountant has been that of a hard driving, self-reliant man (Johnson and Dierks, 1982). Research indicates that stereotypes such as this are “deeply rooted ... and remarkably resistant to
change” (Heilman et al, 1989, p.939). It is also widely believed that one must fit the stereotype, i.e., possess stereotypical masculine traits, to reach top managerial positions in public accounting firms (Lehman, 1990; Maupin, 1993). This results in an underlying assumption that masculine traits are inherent in partner and manager positions. Conversely, the literature has reported that feminine personality traits are detrimental to success in public accounting (Maupin, 1990), and that women must suppress typical feminine behaviors to achieve success in public accounting (Maupin, 1993). Several key points from prior research are important for our study. Maupin’s (1990) study indicates that feminine behaviors decrease at each successive level until none exist at the partner level, even though this same study indicates that approximately 25% of all persons and almost half of the women hired for entry level positions will probably be sex-typed feminine. According to Davidson and Dalby’s (1993) study, women who are sex-typed feminine should be very intelligent, assertive, enthusiastic, self-sufficient, open-minded, and hard driving just like their male counterparts. In addition, women who are sex-typed feminine should also be self-reliant, skeptical, practical, and socially precise with a strong sense of self-image. Given the findings about personalty traits and ability, prior research has not found any obvious reason why women who are sex-typed feminine should not be highly successful in public accounting, including advancement to the partner level.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS Women who are sex-typed feminine appear to be leaving public accounting at higher rates than women who are sex-typed either masculine or androgynous. Developing an awareness or understanding of the influence of stereotypical personality traits on advancement in public accounting may provide some insight into one aspect of retention and promotion of women. Partners’ perceptions are of particular interest because partners are responsible for establishing and communicating those behaviors that are valued and rewarded in their organizations. It is also important to determine if the perceptions of partners are consistent with the perceptions of other professionals in the firm because, generally, behaviors and actions reflect what is rewarded within the organization. The purpose of this study is to ascertain perceptions about the influence of stereotypical personality traits on advancement of women to manager and partner levels in public accounting firms. The research questions examined in this study are:
1.
Do partners, managers, seniors or staff perceive a difference in the influence of feminine versus masculine traits on a woman’s advancement?
2.
Do partners’ perceptions of the influence of feminine and masculine personality traits on a woman’s advancement differ from the perceptions of managers, seniors, or staff?
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Questionnaire A questionnaire with two forms was developed for this study. One form asked practicing accountants for their opinions about the influence of selected personality traits on a woman’s advancement (feminine questionnaire), the other form asked for opinions about the influence of the same personality traits on a man’s advancement (masculine questionnaire). The thirty-item short form of the BSRI, a refinement of the original sixty-item inventory, provided the basis for the questionnaire developed for this study[2] (Bem, 1978). The BSRI short form consists of ten masculine, ten feminine, and ten neutral personality traits. In developing the short form BSRI, Bem retained the most desirable masculine and feminine personality characteristics from the long form BSRI (Bem, 1978). The authors of this study replaced three traits from the short form with the next three most highly correlated traits from the long form BSRI because the replacement traits are more applicable to a business environment. The replacements are as follows:
REPLACEMENT TRAITS: Does not use harsh language Loyal Cheerful
TRAITS REPLACED: Tender Affectionate Loves children.
The personality traits that comprise the questionnaire are shown in Table I. “take in Table I” Survey participants were asked to rate how they think these personality traits actually influence advancement. They were instructed not to indicate what they think is fair or correct or how they think things should be. Participants provided ratings using the following seven-point Likert scale: 1 2
very detrimental moderately detrimental
3 4 5 6 7
slightly detrimental neither detrimental nor beneficial slightly beneficial moderately beneficial very beneficial.
Participants Each audit and tax professional from nine local, regional, and national CPA firms located in a major midwestern metropolitan area received one of the two forms of the questionnaire. Participants were informed that they had been selected to complete one form or the other, but not both. Questionnaires were distributed to achieve approximately equal distribution of the two forms of the questionnaire by gender and by position. For example, in the total population of one hundred and eighty male managers, ninety at random received the feminine questionnaire and ninety at random received the masculine questionnaire. This paper, part of a broad comprehensive study about the influence of personality traits on advancement in public accounting firms, focuses on the advancement of women. Therefore, only data from the feminine questionnaire are analyzed. Four hundred and eight feminine questionnaires were returned for a 69% response rate, which is consistent with the overall response rate of the comprehensive study. The response rates were approximately equal by gender and by position. Data were analyzed by position and gender. Male and female partners were combined for data analysis because of the small number (3) of female partners.
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Mean ratings about the influence of the stereotypical traits on a woman’s advancement are shown by position and gender in Table II. “take in Table II” Partners’ ratings for all the feminine traits examined were greater than 4.0, indicating that these traits are considered beneficial for a women’s advancement. With a few exceptions, men and women in all other positions also rated these traits as beneficial. This is in contrast to earlier reports (Maupin, 1990; Maupin, 1993) that indicated feminine traits
were detrimental to success. Partners and male managers rated all masculine traits, with the exception of dominant, as beneficial. The women and men in all other positions rated all masculine traits as beneficial for a woman’s advancement. Data Analysis The focus of this paper is on composite feminine and masculine traits, rather than on individual personality traits. Therefore, for data analysis, the individual mean ratings shown in Table II were combined into two groups (feminine traits and masculine traits). An overall mean average of the individual masculine traits and an overall mean average of the individual feminine traits was computed by position, by gender. These overall mean averages were examined using a two-tailed t-test. Significance is reported at the < .01 level. Table III shows the results of testing for the difference in the influence of masculine traits compared to feminine traits (research question one). Results indicate that partners do not perceive a difference in how masculine traits and feminine traits influence a women’s advancement to manager and partner levels. However, with the exception of male managers, both men and women at all other positions indicate a difference in how masculine traits and feminine traits influence a woman’s advancement. For all positions with significant differences, the mean ratings for masculine traits were higher than the mean ratings for feminine traits indicating that a woman will derive greater benefit from exhibiting masculine traits than from exhibiting feminine traits “take in Table III” Table IV shows the results of testing for the difference in partners’ perceptions of the influence of feminine and masculine traits on a woman’s advancement compared to the perceptions of managers, seniors or staff, by gender (research question two). Results indicate that males’ perceptions at all other positions are statistically the same as partners’ perceptions. Women’s perceptions at all other positions are different from partners’ perceptions about the influence of feminine traits on a woman’s advancement. Partners ratings of feminine traits were significantly higher than the ratings of all other groups. The perceptions of women at all other positions are statistically the same as the perceptions of partners about the influence of masculine traits on a woman’s advancement. “take in Table IV”
DISCUSSION Public accounting is a mature profession and, in the near term, is unlikely to see substantial growth in the bread and butter areas of tax and audit practice. Current growth is occurring from providing clients with expert knowledge in specialized fields. In the foreseeable future, growth will likely continue in these specialized areas. These changes suggest that personnel will no longer be as interchangeable as they were in the past. A sufficient supply of competent employees to replace those who choose to leave public accounting may not exist (Hooks and Cheramy, 1994). All firms participating in this study are currently searching for senior-supervisors and managers, and report that the availability of qualified applicants is poor. These firms also reported that a substantial percentage of the senior-supervisors and managers that left their firms within the last two years were people that the firm sought to retain. If Maupin’s (1990) study is representative of the accountants who left these firms, it is reasonable to assume that a disproportionate percentage of the women who left are sex-typed feminine. Many partners believe that the controllable factors that influence the retention of women have been resolved by the firms. They believe that any remaining factors result from personal choice, and, therefore, will not be influenced by action taken by firms (Hooks and Cheramy, 1994). The results of this study suggest that perhaps subtle factors related to stereotypical personality traits and the desirability of those traits exist, and may be an issue in the retention of some women. Therefore, these results raise some interesting questions about the differences in perceptions related to feminine traits. First, why does an expectation gap exist between the value that partners place on feminine traits and the value that other women perceive are placed on these traits? Partners are responsible for deciding what traits are valued and rewarded within the organization. If partners’ ratings reflect the reality of how feminine traits are valued in promotion decisions, then they need to more clearly communicate the value of these traits to the organization. Perhaps partners’ ratings indicate that market imperatives are pushing public accounting toward a more inclusive leadership model which embraces greater diversity in the upper-echelons of accounting firms. A less optimistic view of these ratings suggest that partners are simply more politically aware than others in the organization, and that their ratings reflect political correctness, not reality.
Second, if partners who make promotion decisions do not believe that masculine traits are more beneficial than feminine traits for a woman’s advancement, why do all other professionals in the firm, except male managers, believe that masculine traits are more beneficial than feminine? As long as the belief that masculine traits are superior to feminine traits permeates the ranks, women with high feminine traits regardless of how competent they are will not feel they fit the model of a partner as well as persons with high masculine traits. If firms want to retain these women, they need to send the message that, in toady’s environment, persons with high feminine traits are as desirable as persons with high masculine traits.
CONCLUSION The results of this study indicate that partners do not perceive a difference in the influence of stereotypical feminine traits and stereotypical masculine traits on women’s advancement. With the exception of male managers, men and women at all other positions perceive a difference in the influence of feminine traits and masculine traits, and the mean ratings for masculine traits were higher, i.e., more beneficial, than for feminine traits. Results also indicate that the perceptions of women about the influence of feminine traits are different than the perceptions of partners, while the perceptions of men are statistically the same as partners. Partners’ ratings of feminine traits were higher, i.e., more beneficial, than the ratings of women at all other positions. Perceptions of both women and men at all other positions about the influence of masculine behaviors are statistically the same as partner’s perceptions.
These results suggest that public accounting firms have not exhausted their ability to influence the retention of highly competent women. Firms need to carefully scrutinize their organization to determine if their advising, mentoring, and evaluation systems send the message that masculine traits are superior to feminine traits. Partners need to clearly communicate the equal value of women who exhibit high feminine traits, and to develop strategies to help forge new more inclusive models of the partnership position. The need to retain highly competent employees suggests that the benefits that firms may reap from greater retention will surely
exceed the costs incurred in these efforts.
The results of this study support the need for
additional research that may provide more insight into the issue of the retention of women with high feminine personality traits.
ENDNOTES [1] A personality trait “qualified as masculine if it was judged to be more desirable in American society for a man than a woman, and it qualified as feminine if it was judged to be more desirable for a woman than a man. ... the BSRI characterizes a person as masculine, feminine, or androgynous as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. A person is thus sex-typed, whether masculine or feminine, to the extent that this difference score is high, and androgynous, to the extent that this difference score is low.” (BEM, 1974, p. 156).
[2] The BSRI was adapted and used with permission of the publisher.
REFERENCES
Abernathy, J. (1990) “The changing profession: An interview with John Abernathy”, The CPA Journal, January, pp. 36-42. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1989) “Planning for the future: A condensation of the Report of the AICPA Strategic Planning Committee”, Journal of Accountancy , September, pp. 57-66. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1996), The Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand for Public Accounting Recruits-1996, AICPA, New York, N.Y. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1980), The Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand for Public Accounting Recruits-1980, AICPA, New York, N.Y. Ballard-Reisch, D. and Elton, M. (1992) “Gender orientation and the Bem Sex role Inventory: A psychological construct revisited”, Sex Roles, Vol 27 No 5/6, pp. 291-306. Bem, S.L. (1974) “The measurement of psychological androgyny”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 42, April, pp. 155-162. Bem, S.L. (1978), Bem Sex Role Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.,Palo Alto, CA. Biggs, S. Jr. (1986) “The changing economics of the public accounting profession”, The Ohio CPA Journal, Summer, pp. 11-18. Collins, K.M. (1993) “Stress and departures from the public accounting profession: A study of gender differences”, Accounting Horizons, March, pp. 29-38. Davidson, R. A. and Dalby, T. J. (1993) “Personality profile of female public accountants”, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 81-97. Earnest, K. R. and Lampe, J. C. (1982) “Attitudinal differences between male and female auditors”, The Women CPA, July, pp. 13-16; pp. 18-20. Heaton, C. E. and Simmons, B. S. (1994) “All men are created equal but women aren’t men”, Massachusetts CPA Review, Spring, pp. 19-21. Heilman, M.E., Block,C.J., Martell, R.F., and Simon, M.C. (1989) “Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 74, pp. 935-942. Higham, J. E. and Libby, S. E. (1994) “Business faces the challenge of advancing and retaining women”, Massachusetts CPA Review , Summer, pp. 24-27. Hooks K.L. and Cheramy S.J. (1994) “Facts and myths about women CPAs”, Journal of Accountancy, October, pp. 79-86. In Practice. (1993) “Advancing women in the workplace”, Training and Development, September, pp. 9-10. Johnson, P.L.and Dierks, P. A. (1982) “What are women accountants really like?” Management Accounting, March, pp. 25-28. Lehman, C.R. (1990) “The importance of being earnest: gender conflicts in accounting”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol 3, pp. 137-157. Maupin, R.J. (1990) “Sex role identity and career success of certified public accountants”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol 3, pp. 97-105. Maupin, R.J. (1993) “How can women's lack of upward mobility in accounting organizations be explained?”, Group and Organization Management, Vol 18, June, pp. 132-152. Schmitt, B.H. and Millard, R.T. (1988) “Construct validity of the BEM Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI): Does the BSRI distinguish between gender-schematic and gender-aschematic individuals?”, Sex Roles, Vol 19 No 7/8, pp. 417-427. The “White” Paper. (1989), Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession, April.
FIGURE 1
Junior
Seniors
Managers
Partners
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Sex-Type
(n=86)
(n=113)
(n=54)
(n=68)
(n=47)
(n-46)
(n=34)
(n=13)
Feminine
8%
46%
4%
38%
9%
17%
0%
0%
Masculine
38%
13%
48%
22%
53%
33%
41%
46%
Androgynous
22%
26%
31%
31%
34%
50%
59%
54%
Undifferentiated
32%
15%
17%
9%
4%
0%
0%
0%
TABLE I Personality Traits FEMININE
MASCULINE
NEUTRAL
Cheerful
Defends own beliefs
Moody
Loyal
Independent
Conscientious
Sympathetic
Assertive
Reliable
Sensitive to needs of others
Strong personality
Jealous
Understanding
Forceful
Truthful
Compassionate
Has leadership abilities
Secretive
Eager to soothe hurt feelings
Willing to take risks
Conceited
Warm
Dominant
Adaptable
Does not use harsh language
Willing to take a stand
Tactful
Gentle
Aggressive
Conventional
TABLE II Mean Ratings by Position and Gender of the Extent of Influence of Feminine Traits and Masculine Traits on a Woman’s Advancement
PARTNER
FEMININE TRAITS Cheerful Loyal Sympathetic Sensitive Understanding Compassionate Hurt feelings Warm Harsh language Gentle MASCULINE TRAITS Defends beliefs Independent Assertive Strong personality Forceful Leadership Takes risks Dominant Take a stand Aggressive
MANAGER
SENIOR
STAFF
n = 60
Female n = 48
Male n = 79
Female n = 64
Male n = 64
Female n = 44
Male n = 49
Mean 5.7 6.1 4.8 5.6 5.5 5.0 4.4 5.1 5.1 4.3
Mean 5.1 5.5 4.0 4.8 5.0 4.2 3.7 4.4 5.0 3.4
Mean 5.6 5.8 4.4 5.1 5.2 4.5 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.0
Mean 5.4 5.6 4.1 4.6 4.9 4.3 3.8 4.4 4.6 3.7
Mean 5.3 5.8 4.5 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.1 4.8 4.8 4.2
Mean 5.1 5.4 4.3 5.0 4.9 4.2 3.9 4.6 4.8 3.8
Mean 5.3 5.8 4.3 5.3 5.2 4.4 3.9 4.7 4.8 4.0
6.0 5.6 6.1 5.2 5.0 6.7 5.9 3.5 6.0 5.4
4.8 5.4 5.7 4.9 4.1 6.5 5.5 4.2 5.4 4.8
5.7 5.5 5.9 5.2 4.3 6.7 5.4 3.5 5.7 5.1
5.2 5.8 6.3 5.3 4.3 6.5 5.9 4.7 5.9 5.3
5.2 5.3 6.0 5.5 4.3 6.7 5.3 4.0 5.8 5.3
5.1 5.9 6.3 5.6 4.0 6.6 5.6 4.5 5.8 5.3
5.7 5.6 6.3 5.9 4.2 6.5 5.4 4.1 5.9 5.6
TABLE III Significant Differences by Position: Feminine versus Masculine Traits Position
Feminine Overall Mean Average 5.153
Masculine Overall Mean Average 5.535
Female Managers Female Seniors Female Staff
4.514 4.536 4.605
5.135 5.495 5.473
3.930* 6.760* 5.673*
Male Managers Male Seniors Male Staff
4.821 4.834 4.765
5.304 5.344 5.512
2.803 3.450* 9.830*
Partner
* = significant at the .01 level.
T-Value
2.373
TABLE IV Significant Differences in the Overall Mean Ratings of Managers, Seniors, and Staff as compared to Partners
PARTNER
MANAGER
SENIOR
STAFF
Traits FEMININE
Mean 5.153
Female Mean T-Value 4.514 4.53*
Male Mean T-Value 4.821 2.43
Female Mean T-Value 4.536 4.40*
Male Mean T-Value 4.834 2.52
Female Mean T-Value 4.605 4.40*
Male Mean T-Value 4.765 2.85
MASCULINE
5.535
5.135
5.304
5.495
5.344
5.473
5.512
* = significant at the .01 level.
2.27
1.20
.23
1.05
.34
1.25
