The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce. Volume 1: Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium

The Psychology of Women at Work © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved. Recent Titles in Women’s Psychology ‘‘Intimate...

Author: Michele A. Paludi

102 downloads 453 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Psychology of Women at Work

© 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Recent Titles in Women’s Psychology ‘‘Intimate’’ Violence against Women: When Spouses, Partners, or Lovers Attack Paula K. Lundberg-Love and Shelly L. Marmion, editors Daughters of Madness: Growing Up and Older with a Mentally Ill Mother Susan Nathiel Psychology of Women: Handbook of Issues and Theories, Second Edition Florence L. Denmark and Michele A. Paludi, editors WomanSoul: The Inner Life of Women’s Spirituality Carole A. Rayburn and Lillian Comas-Dıaz


The Psychology of Women at Work Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce

Volume 1 Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium

Edited by MICHELE A. PALUDI

Praeger Perspectives Women’s Psychology


Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The psychology of women at work : challenges and solutions for our female workforce / edited by Michele A. Paludi p. cm. — (Women’s psychology, ISSN 1931-0021) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-275-99677-2 ((set) : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-275-99679-6 ((vol. 1) : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-275-99681-9 ((vol. 2) : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-275-99683-3 ((vol. 3) : alk. paper) 1. Women—Employment—Psychological aspects. 2. Work and family. 3. Women—Job stress. 4. Women—Psychology. I. Paludi, Michele Antoinette. HD6053.P75 2008 158.7082—dc22 2008004119 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright

C

2008 by Michele A. Paludi

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008004119 ISBN: 978-0-275-99677-2 (set) 978-0-275-99679-6 (vol. 1) 978-0-275-99681-9 (vol. 2) 978-0-275-99683-3 (vol. 3) ISSN: 1931-0021 First published in 2008 Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.praeger.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10 9 8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1


For Antoinette and Michael Paludi, who encouraged me to define what women’s work is for myself


Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

Introduction

xi

Chapter 1: Transforming Organizations and the Quality of Life of the People Who Work in Them: In My Own Voice Linda Gordon Howard

1

Chapter 2: Speaking in a ‘‘Man’s World’’: Gender Differences in Communication Styles Susan Basow

15

Chapter 3: On Work-Life Balance: In My Own Voice Michelle Wildgrube

31

Chapter 4: When the Boss Is a Woman Joan Chrisler and Sarah K. Clapp

39

Chapter 5: Women Who Started Up: The State of Women in Entrepreneurship Presha E. Neidermeyer, Emily Buenn, and Robert Edelman

67

Chapter 6: Leadership and Women Karen Duff-McCall and William Schweinle

87

Chapter 7: Feminist Competing Values Leadership: An Investigation of the Roles Played by Men and Women Nancy Miller Frank and Alan Belasen

101

Chapter 8: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Krystle C. Woods and Nicole T. Buchanan

119


viii

Contents

Chapter 9: Uncovering and Countering Sexual Harassment in Israel: A New Career Path Ayelet Giladi 133 Chapter 10: Career Preparation Programs in High Schools: How Do Schools Ready Students for Life and Work? Beatrice Hall

137

Chapter 11: Shifting the Load: Personality Factors and Women in the Workplace Jennifer L. Martin

153

Chapter 12: Women Supporting Women in the Workplace: In My Own Voice Carrie Turco

201

Index

205

About the Editor and Contributors

211


Acknowledgments

I thank Debbie Carvalko at Praeger for her encouragement and support throughout the writing of these three volumes. It is an honor to work with her. I also thank the graduate students in my human resources classes for their comments about the changing nature of work for women. I am confident that they will make a difference in the lives of the next generation of women employees and their families. I am grateful to Carrie Turco and Sharon Butler for their comments on earlier versions of the introduction. The following family, friends, and colleagues have been invaluable during the preparation of these three volumes. Thank you to Rosalie Paludi, Lucille Paludi, Presha Neidermeyer, and Paula Lundberg Love. I especially acknowledge Carmen Paludi, Jr., for his friendship and sage advice. Together we continue to make the dreams of our grandparents on Weaver Street into realities. Finally, I wish to thank William Norton Dember, my advisor and mentor in graduate school, who, like my parents, told me to seek my own career path and be tough-minded and kindhearted at the same time. I started drafting these books after I last saw Bill in May 2006, when we discussed my career since graduate school (it had been 26 years since I received my PhD). He reminded me that I came to work with him as a graduate student at the University of Cincinnati because I was interested in the psychology of women’s work and achievement motivation. Moreover, he inquired why I hadn’t written or edited a book in that field during the course of my career. These three volumes are in response to Bill’s question. Bill died in September 2006. These books are in tribute to him as a psychologist, mentor, professor, colleague, and friend.


Introduction

Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, ‘‘She doesn’t have what it takes.’’ They will say, ‘‘Women don’t have what it takes.’’ —Clare Boothe Luce

Clare Boothe Luce’s sentiment was once again highlighted during the preparation of these three volumes of The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce, when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Throughout the initial part of Senator Clinton’s candidacy, comments about a woman president received media attention. Polls from CNN.com (July 24, 2007) and YouTube (January 21, 2007; March 5, 2007) reported the following quotations: ‘‘Hillary Clinton needs to wear a dress or skirt now and then. Her always making public appearances in pants gives a sense she is trying to ‘fit in’ with the boys, which is never going to be the case.’’ ‘‘Hillary is cute. Those are her qualifications for prez.’’ ‘‘It’ll be nice to have a woman president but you know white America won’t let her.’’ ‘‘Women, above all, should reject hillary. Missus clinton is the biggest misogynist of all.’’ ‘‘hillary clinton running must be a joke! A woman for president! Ha! Now that[’]s a joke.’’

Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband, John Edwards, also declared his candidacy for president, joined the chorus in criticizing Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Edwards stated the following: She [Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation. We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

xii

Introduction choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I’m more joyful than she is.

Elizabeth Edwards also stated, ‘‘Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues.’’ Mrs. Edwards’s comments prompted a comparison of the two women—one perceived as ‘‘feminine’’ and the other ‘‘masculine.’’ Responses from a CNN.com poll (July 24, 2007) included the following: ‘‘It would be awesome if Hillary was more like Elizabeth. But Hillary lacks the compassion and realness Elizabeth possesses.’’ Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC’s Tucker, asked a guest, ‘‘I mean, let’s take this critique [by Elizabeth Edwards] seriously—is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?’’ This is in direct contrast to the view that many people had of Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, who, when she dropped out of running for U.S. president in 1984, cried. This raised the question of whether a woman was too ‘‘emotional’’ to be president. Schroeder (1998) wrote, ‘‘Crying is almost a ritual that male politicians must do to prove they are compassionate, but women are supposed to wear iron britches.’’ In 1870, when Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president, declared her candidacy, the New York Herald commented: ‘‘She is rather in advance of her time. The public mind is not yet educated to the pitch of universal woman’s [sic] rights’’ (‘‘Woman’s Idea of Government,’’ 1870, p. 6). In 2008 we are still hearing arguments that the United States is not ready for a woman president—a view expressed not only to Victoria Woodhull but also to other women candidates for president before Hillary Clinton: Margaret Chase Smith (in 1964), Shirley Chisolm (in 1972), Patricia Schroeder (in 1984), Elizabeth Dole (in 2000), and Carolyn Moseley Braun (in 2004). Similar comments were directed toward Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to be placed on a national presidential ticket (as Walter Mondale’s vice president in 1984). Ferraro was criticized for wearing short-sleeved dresses while campaigning because her arms wobbled when she waved (considered not ‘‘feminine’’). ‘‘The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, ‘It’s a girl,’’’ Shirley Chisholm once noted. Gender-role stereotypes about ‘‘appropriate’’ and ‘‘inappropriate’’ occupations for women still abound. Gender stereotyping is a psychological process that illustrates a structured set of beliefs about the personal attributes of females and males (Ashmore & DelBoca, 1981; Doyle & Paludi, 1997; Fiske & Stevens, 1993). When asked to describe a woman, for example, individuals commonly cite ‘‘caring,’’ ‘‘nurturing,’’ ‘‘sensitive,’’ and ‘‘passive.’’ When asked to name a woman’s occupation, individuals cite ‘‘nurse,’’ ‘‘elementary school teacher,’’ or ‘‘social worker,’’ but not ‘‘president of the United States.’’ © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction

xiii

I have frequently used the following riddle when students and trainees indicate that they believe that they themselves do not hold genderrole stereotypes about occupations: One afternoon, a man and his son go for a drive through the countryside. After an hour or so they get into a terrible car crash. The father dies instantly. The son is taken by a helicopter to the nearest hospital, where a prominent surgeon is called to help save the boy’s life. Immediately on entering the operating room and looking at the boy, the surgeon exclaims, ‘‘I can’t possibly operate on this boy . . . he’s my son.’’ How can this be?

The responses I have received to this question have ranged from ‘‘The father didn’t really die—he sustained only minor injuries and could perform the surgery’’ to ‘‘It was the boy’s stepfather who died, and his biological father was the surgeon’’ to ‘‘The boy’s adoptive father is the surgeon, and his biological father was with him in the car.’’ Individuals rarely solve this riddle: The surgeon is the boy’s mother. When the answer is revealed, these individuals are angry with themselves that they initially stated that they hold no occupational stereotypes for women and men. Individuals also usually ‘‘mark’’ an occupation if they believe that the gender of the person performing the job is atypical. Thus, they say ‘‘male nurse,’’ ‘‘female physician,’’ ‘‘female professor,’’ and ‘‘male model’’ (Paludi, Paludi, & DeFour, 2004). Markings alert listeners or readers to something atypical for the occupation—that it is held by an individual of the sex other than the one with which it is traditionally associated. An awareness of the contents of occupational stereotypes related to gender begins in the preschool years and is well developed by first grade (Betz, in press; Gottfredson, 1981; Heyman & Legare, 2004; Hughes & Seta, 2003; Sczesny, 2003). Among 6-year-olds, there is research evidence of gender stereotypes in the kinds of occupations that children consider for future employment. Girls commonly choose the occupations of nurse, teacher, or flight attendant. Boys, on the other hand, select police officer, truck driver, architect, or pilot. Children’s ranges of occupations are difficult to change once they are set (Betz, in press; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1999). Levy, Sadovsky, and Troseth (2000) reported that a stereotypic view of the world reinforces many of the common gender-role stereotypes and is a factor in prompting young boys’ interest in more than twice as many occupations as that of young girls. Girls thus restrict their occupational aspirations. In addition, girls have a more limited concept than boys do of the career possibilities available to them in math- and computer-related occupations (Burger et al., 2007; Creamer & Laughlin, 2005; Naua, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998; White & White, 2006). Girls focus © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

xiv

Introduction

on occupations that are associated with less status, less satisfaction, and less pay than the occupations considered by boys (Heyman, 2000; Richardson & Sandoval (2007). Siegel and Reis (1998) reported that although teachers perceived gifted girls as working harder and doing better work than gifted boys, these teachers gave higher grades to the boys. Similarly, Fennema and colleagues (1996) found that teachers perceived that boys are better than gifted girls at math and science. Kerr, Colangelo, and Gaeth (1988) reported that gifted girls are concerned about the negative effects of being gifted on their peers’ attitudes toward them. The researchers found that, by the sophomore year of college, most gifted women changed their majors to less intellectually challenging ones. Furthermore, Kerr, Colangelo, and Gaeth found that, by their senior year, these gifted women reduced the level of their career goals. Brody (1977) reported a decline in self-esteem among girls but not boys in elementary, middle, and high school. For example, 55% of elementary school girls agreed with the following statement: ‘‘I am good at a lot of things.’’ This percentage declined to 29% in middle school and 23% in high school. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) (1992) reported that girls who pursued math and science courses and participated in sports maintained their self-esteem from elementary school through high school. Hall and Sandler (1982) and Allan and Madden (2006) argued that, for girls and women, the educational system is a ‘‘chilly climate.’’ Girls and women are discouraged from classroom participation, are sexually harassed by teachers as well as peers, receive a lack of mentoring, and are advised by guidance counselors to lower their expectations for a career (AAUW, 2001; Paludi, Martin, & Paludi, 2007; Richardson & Sandoval, 2007). As can be seen from this brief review, an important manifestation of gender-role stereotyping is a progressive decrease in girls’ and women’s career aspirations (Betz, 2007; Farmer, 1997). ‘‘The test for whether or not you can hold a job should not be the arrangement of your chromosomes,’’ Bella Abzug once protested. Lacampagne, Campbell, Herzig, Damarin, and Vogt (2007) reported that gender differences are significant in math-related careers and in career aspirations. For example, of students who took the SAT in 2005, 5% of boys and 1% of girls reported planning to major in computer science. In addition, 10% of boys and 2% of girls were planning to major in engineering (College Board, 2005). Career education programs continue to be gender-segregated; 90% of women in training programs are in traditionally female fields—for example, office technology and health care (AAUW, 2002). More than 90% of teachers (preschool, elementary, and special education), secretaries, childcare workers, waitresses, hairdressers, speech therapists, occupational © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction

xv

therapists, dental hygienists, and teacher’s aides are women (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003). Betz (in press) reported that women remain underrepresented in technical and scientific fields as well as in managerial positions in education, government, business, and the military. In a recent study conducted by Catalyst (2007), gender-role stereotyping was linked to women’s participation as leaders in business. According to this report, ‘‘Gender stereotyping, one of the key barriers to women’s advancement in corporate leadership, leaves women with limited, conflicting and often unfavorable options no matter how they choose to lead.’’ Catalyst found that women constitute more than 50% of management and professional occupations but are only 15.6% of Fortune 500 corporate officers and 14.6% of Fortune 500 board directors. Ilene Lang, president of Catalyst, comments on this as follows: When companies fail to acknowledge and address the impact of gender stereotypic bias, they lose out on top female talent. . . . Ultimately, it’s not women’s leadership styles that need to change. Only when organizations take action to address the impact of gender stereotyping will they be able to capitalize on the ‘‘full deck’’ of talent.

Women earn less than 20% of the bachelor’s degrees in fields such as engineering and physics and less than 10% of the graduate degrees in engineering (Betz, 2007). Women represent only about 14% of engineers, 30% of computer systems analysts, and 25% of computer programmers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003, 2005). Women account for 8% of physicists and astronomers, 7% of air traffic controllers, 5% of truck drivers, 4% of pilots, 5% of firefighters, and 2% of carpenters and electricians (Betz, 2007). Equally important, women are paid less for full-time employment than men are; women make only 77% as much as men do when both are employed full-time (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). This income disparity is greater for Black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic women than for White women, and for middle-age and older women than for younger women. ‘‘We haven’t come a long way,’’ noted Elizabeth Janeway, ‘‘we’ve come a short way. If we hadn’t come a short way, no one would be calling us baby.’’ These realities of the psychology of women at work require an indepth look at not only the barriers to women’s success but also the strategies for empowering women at the individual, organizational, legal, and societal levels. These three volumes provide an overview of the scholarly research on the issues related to women and work. Volume 1, ‘‘Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium,’’ provides an overview of research on comparisons of men and women © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

xvi

Introduction

in gender-relative (i.e., stereotypical masculine and feminine) communication styles, women as bosses, women as entrepreneurs, personality factors that impact women in the workplace, feminist competing values leadership, career preparation programs in high school, and sexual harassment. Volume 2, ‘‘Obstacles and the Identity Juggle,’’ offers reviews on the double standard for women in the workplace; sexual harassment; women and leadership; the glass ceiling; pay inequalities; incivility toward women in the workplace; women in the sciences, technology, engineering, and math; and the economics of women in the workplace. Volume 3, ‘‘Self, Family, and Social Affects,’’ discusses women and self-esteem, the impact of work on women’s physical health, mental health issues for women in the workforce (especially women who have experienced discrimination), women’s relationships with male co-workers, and religion and women at work. In addition to the scholarly reviews of research on the psychology of women at work, I have included women’s personal accounts of their career development, especially their experiences in the labor force. A variety of careers is represented in these personal accounts—attorney, human resource manager, college president, chiropractor, and psychologist—as well as students who are pursuing careers. For many years researchers have defined for women what success is, what work is, and what achievement striving should be. These definitions have typically contained masculine biases (Paludi & Fankell-Hauser, 1986). Thus, these personal accounts of women’s experiences recognize that women differ in the strength of their striving for achievement and in the roles that elicit their striving, taking into account the effects of family, friends, role models, and partners. It is the goal of these volumes that these personal accounts stimulate additional research, legislation, and advocacy on behalf of female students and employees so that a woman running for the United States presidency will be accepted and encouraged.

REFERENCES Allan, E., & Madden, M. (2006). Chilly classrooms for female undergraduate students: A question of method? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 684– 711. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). The AAUW report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2002). Title IX at 30: Report card on gender equity. Washington, DC: Author.


Introduction

xvii

Ashmore, R., & DelBoca, F. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Betz, N. (2007). Women’s career development. In F. L. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 717–752. Brody, J. E. (1997, November 4). Girls and puberty: The crisis years. The New York Times, p. B8. Burger, C., Abbott, G., Tobias, S., Koch, J., Vogt, C., & Sosa, T. (2007). Gender equity in science, engineering and technology. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (pp. 255–279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Catalyst. (2007). The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. New York: Author. College Board. (2005). 2005 College-bound seniors: Total group profile report. Available online at www.college-board.com Creamer, E., & Laughlin, A. (2005). Self-authorship and women’s career decision making. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 13–27. Doyle, J., & Paludi, M. (1997). Sex and gender: The human experience. New York: McGraw-Hill. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1999). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley. Farmer, H. S. (1976). What inhibits achievement and career motivation in women? Counseling Psychologist, 6, 12–14. Farmer, H. S. (1997). Diversity and women’s career development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434. Fiske, S., & Stevens, L. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A development theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579. Hall, R., & Sandler, B. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women. Heyman, J. (2000). The widening gap. New York: Basic Books. Heyman, G., & Legare, C. (2004). Children’s beliefs about gender differences in academic social domains. Sex Roles, 50, 227–239. Hughes, F., & Seta, C. (2003). Gender stereotypes: Children’s perceptions of future compensatory behavior following violations of gender roles. Sex Roles, 49, 685–691. Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 245–247. Lacampagne, C., Campbell, P., Herzig, A., Damarin, S., & Vogt, C. (2007). Gender equity in mathematics. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (pp. 235–253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


xviii

Introduction

Levy, G., Sadovsky, A., & Troseth, G. (2000). Aspects of young children’s perceptions of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 42, 993–1006. Naua, M., Epperson, D., & Kahn, J. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of predictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics, science and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483– 496. Paludi, M., & Fankell-Hauser, J. (1986). An idiographic approach to the study of women’s achievement strivings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 89– 100. Paludi, M., Martin, J., & Paludi, C. (2007). Sexual harassment: The hidden gender equity problem. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (pp. 215–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Paludi, M., Paludi, C., & DeFour, D. (2004). Introduction: Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same). In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. xi–xxxi). Westport, CT: Praeger. Richardson, B., & Sandoval, P. (2007). Impact of education on gender equity in employment and its outcomes. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (pp. 43–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schroeder, P. (1998). 24 Years of housework . . . and the place is still a mess: My life in politics. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel. Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363. Siegel, D., & Reis, S. M., (1998). Gender differences in teacher and student perceptions of gifted students’ ability and effort. Gifted Children Quarterly, 42, 39–47. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Facts on women workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Women in the labor force: A data book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. White, M., & White, G. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 55, 259–266. Woman’s idea of government. (1870). New York Herald, p. 6.


Chapter 1

Transforming Organizations and the Quality of Life of the People Who Work in Them: In My Own Voice Linda Gordon Howard

I have had extraordinary good fortune, abundant opportunities, and remarkable experiences in my career. Many experiences were literally dreams that came true. This is my attempt to share my experiences, as a woman, of working. I have not spent much time considering my career as the career of a woman, although it obviously is. It is obvious, for example, that I chose to specialize in employment discrimination law and particularly in sexual harassment law—a specialty that focuses on the rights of traditionally disenfranchised groups, including working women. This choice was clearly affected by my view of women’s work. As a child and a young woman, I heard a lot of opinions and advice about what women could and could not do. I ignored most of it because it was patently silly. I was extremely lucky to have had educated parents who encouraged me and my two brothers to pursue whatever we wanted to do and who never suggested that there was anything we could not do. My mother is a retired a math professor and college administrator. My father, who was a biology professor and the chairman of his department, supported my mother’s professional ambitions. I grew up hearing stories about my feisty grandmother, a schoolteacher who took her youngest child to school with her in a baby carriage. In the fall of 1970, when I arrived at the University of Virginia (UVA) Law School, I was so happy that I was unable to contain my © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

2

Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium

complete joy. I had wanted to be a lawyer since I was 9 years old, and I was finally well on the way toward making that dream a reality. The 1970s were a heady and exciting time. The group of women who began law school at UVA that year did not think we were making history; at least, I did not think I was making history. We were living our lives and starting a great adventure. That year, 1970, is considered to be the official beginning of the women’s movement marked by the first publication of Ms. magazine. Women had been admitted to University of Virginia’s undergraduate program under federal court order the previous fall. The first Black woman, Elaine Jones, had graduated from the law school that June, just a few months earlier. In my law school class of about 300 students, 17 were women and 12 were Black. Three of these were Black women: myself, Stephanie Valentine, and Gloria Bouldin. Stephanie and I had been nursery school classmates. Gloria Bouldin’s mother and my mother had attended Virginia State College (now Virginia State University) together and had lived in neighboring dormitory rooms. It has been reported that the fall of 1970 was the first year that the total number of women law students at UVA reached double digits. I was excited, in part, because we were destined to be the governors, senators, judges, law firm partners, and leaders who would run the country and the economy in the next 20 years. I knew that these fleeting years would forge friendships, bonds, and alliances whose impact would be important and far-reaching. In my second year, my fellow students elected me ‘‘president of the law school,’’ the university’s impressive title for law school’s student body president. Soon after the election, the press reported that I was the first woman and the first Black student to be elected to that position. That year was magical, fun, and productive. The election itself, however, led to hundreds of new friendships with students at UVA and at schools around the country, law school alumni, and government officials. Interviewing with law firms in my third year of law school was a difficult and disappointing experience. I felt fortunate to have been selected for interviews by several firms. The interviewer from one large law firm asked me what kind of birth control I used. I was shocked. I thought it was an entirely inappropriate question. I declined to answer and ended the interview. Another interviewer, from an Atlanta law firm, told me that the firm was willing to hire me, but it could not announce my arrival with the customary written announcement. It was ready to hire its first Black lawyer, he explained, but the clients had asked the firm not to ‘‘broadcast’’ it. I had other similarly strange interactions with law firm interviewers. I never reported the incidents to law school officials (which, in hindsight, I know would have been the correct action). For many years, I did not share these experiences with © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Transforming Organizations and the Quality of Life

3

anyone. I had decided that these interviews were a taste of the kind of degrading behavior I would have to deal with if I chose to work in a law firm. I abandoned my search for a law firm job and used other resources to find a job with a government agency or an academic institution. I know now that the interviewers’ comments did not necessarily indicate what my future would have been with those firms. I had four job offers in the spring of 1973. One offer, from the Virginia attorney general’s office, was to represent educational institutions in the state of Virginia. The second offer, from the University of Delaware at Newark, was to serve as chairperson of the Black Studies Department. The third offer was to serve as instructor of law at the University of Detroit Law School. The fourth offer was to serve as a staff attorney at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Although I very much wanted to teach law, I dismissed the Detroit offer. I learned that I would be the only person on the instructional staff of the law school with the rank of instructor, and the dean could not explain this low rank to my satisfaction. Sallyanne Payton, a Black lawyer who was about to move from President Richard Nixon’s Domestic Policy staff to become chief counsel of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) at the DOT, invited me to be her special assistant. I knew Sally from having taken a law school course she taught as an adjunct professor. I reasoned that I could trust her to train me as a lawyer and to take a personal interest in my career. MY FIRST JOB The staff at UMTA was small but diverse. We were seven lawyers: two Black women (Sally and me), one White woman (another new lawyer), a gay Black man, and three White men. I was very aware of, and somewhat uncomfortable with, the distinct difference in status between the clerical support staff, who were all women, and the lawyers. At UMTA, I learned how to write a memorandum about the impact of proposed government actions, how agencies work with Congress, and how private lobbyists can wield significant power in the legislature. Our work was largely to make sure that applications for federal funding for metropolitan bus and subway systems met the requirements of our enabling legislation. My major accomplishment at UMTA was to organize, edit, and publish Developing Mass Transit Systems, a manual on how to create and finance mass transit systems. We had a lot of contact with the lawyers and officials who had developed the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) in San Francisco and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA); they contributed heavily to the publication. In the spring of 1974, it was time for me to leave the DOT, but I didn’t know what was next. The opportunity came when I was attending © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

4


a dinner at the LBJ Ranch in Texas hosted by Lady Byrd Johnson. I had met Mrs. Johnson through Chuck Robb, the husband of Lynda Byrd Johnson; he was a law school classmate of mine and a good friend. I was seated next to Arthur Krim, a longtime friend of the Johnsons’ and a former assistant to President Johnson. Arthur had become chairman of the New York State Democratic Party, chairman of the board of Columbia University, and chairman of the board of United Artists, which he later left to form and head Orion Pictures. Arthur asked me how my job was going. I considered giving the usual answer of ‘‘fine,’’ but it would not have been the truth. I thought to myself, ‘‘Here is this terrific man asking about my job. I want to have a real conversation with him, not an ordinary, fake conversation.’’ So, I said, ‘‘The people are very nice, but I’m bored.’’ He asked what I really wanted to do, and there was no question. I wanted to work at the U.S. Senate. That’s where the action was, and I wanted to be where the action was. So that’s what I said. About 2 weeks later, I received a call from Bill Wright, another of President Johnson’s former assistants. Bill said he understood that I wanted to work at the Senate. There is very high turnover in these offices, he explained. He instructed me to go to Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s office every day at lunchtime and after work. I was to introduce myself and get to know the staff. ‘‘Eventually someone will leave, and you will be right there—known, familiar, and able.’’ He added, ‘‘You do that, and we’ll take care of the rest.’’ I did exactly as he instructed, and in about 6 weeks one of the staffers left his job to return to graduate school in Texas, creating an opening. Soon thereafter, I was hired as Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s new legislative assistant, responsible for Judiciary and Commerce matters. THE UNITED STATES SENATE I started my new job at the U.S. Senate in the spring of 1974. Senator Bentsen, who later served as President Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, was the junior senator from Texas, having defeated George H. W. Bush for the seat. One of my first actions was to propose an amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence that would limit the admissibility of an alleged rape victim’s sexual history in rape trials in federal jurisdictions. Defense attorneys commonly used evidence about the alleged victim’s sexual history, ostensibly to prove that she had consented to have sex with the defendant. The practical effect was to damage the alleged victim’s credibility as a witness, making a rape trial such a difficult ordeal that many women refused to testify, thereby making it exceedingly difficult for prosecutors to get convictions in rape cases. I suggested in a staff meeting that the senator sponsor a federal ‘‘rape shield’’ law. My male colleagues laughed at and ridiculed the proposal. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


5

I had distributed a two-page memo that exceeded the office’s one-page limit on memos to the senator, and it became famous as ‘‘Linda’s magnum opus.’’ I persisted in advocating for what I thought was an important measure. The senator ultimately cosponsored the bill. I accompanied him when he spoke at a conference on rape in Austin that was attended primarily by women constituents, and he received a great deal of positive press attention back home in Texas related to the proposed new law. In the summer of 1974, as the House Judiciary Committee pressed on with the impeachment of President Nixon, the Senate was gearing up for the trial that would have proceeded had Nixon not resigned. I was asked to write a floor speech in which Senator Bentsen would propose that the cost of Nixon’s defense be paid by the federal government. This was a crisis of conscience for me. I wanted Nixon out of office, and having the government pay for his defense seemed to me to be a bad idea. My assignment was to make a clear and convincing case that my boss would present on the Senate floor. I spoke to colleagues, friends, and constitutional experts at length, until I finally realized that no expert would make the case. I had to make the case. I reasoned that if the president were to be tried before the Senate, the prosecution would bring the full weight and resources of the U.S. government against him. If he were to have an adequate defense, and if the outcome of the trial were to have any credibility, especially if he were to be convicted, the government had to bear the cost of his defense. There could be no room whatever for an argument that Nixon’s ability to defend himself had been limited by the size of his own personal fortune. Even if Nixon’s friends and associates could raise adequate private funds for his defense, which I had to assume they could, the appropriate decision had to be applicable to any president, not just to this president. When I was finished, I was satisfied that the senator’s position was solid and right. It was my first experience doing a work assignment that I initially found distasteful, based on my personal political convictions.. I was delighted that I had completed the assignment with my own integrity intact. I was able to stand by every word in that speech. I also worked on the voluminous bill that became the Copyright Act of 1976. The bill dealt, in part, with the rights to televised baseball games and the emerging cable industry. During this time, I attended a meeting with Major League Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, whose arrival at the office was a very big deal. The men on the staff were far more excited about the opportunity to meet the baseball commissioner than I was. In early 1975, Senator Bentsen announced that he was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. One day in the spring, I and my small group of friends, who lunched together almost every day and © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

6


thought of ourselves as the hearty band of liberals on the staff of the moderate Texas senator, were all fired—the men in the morning and the women in the afternoon. Later the same week, I received a telephone call from Professor Jack Slain from Ohio State University College of Law, asking whether I was interested in ‘‘academic law.’’ I was about to transfer the call to the staff member who was responsible for issues that affect academic institutions when Professor Slain said that he was calling about a job. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW By August 1975, I had moved from Washington, DC, to Columbus, Ohio, to start my third job: assistant professor at Ohio State University College of Law (now Moritz College of Law). I loved teaching, and I adored my students. Dean Orin Slagle, who later became dean of Florida State University School of Law and who passed away late in 2006, was a supportive guide. In addition to me, there was one woman on the faculty, Kathryn (Katie) D. Sowle, who was married to fellow professor Claude Sowle (Claude Sowle later served as president of Ohio University in Miami, Ohio.). Katie and I were granted tenure in the fall of 1978; we were the first women to receive tenure at the law school. I discovered many years later that I was one of the first three Black women to receive tenure at a predominantly white U.S. law school. In 1975, when I joined the Ohio State faculty, women made up almost 25% of law school students nationally. I taught courses on evidence, legislation, and gender-based discrimination. I was the sole woman among the five new faculty members. Each of the four men had been invited to play on one of the student-faculty softball teams. I had not even been approached. I repeatedly reminded my students in my gender-based discrimination class of this fact. It was gender-role stereotyping, I explained at length, resulting from an assumption that, as a woman, I either could not play softball or was not interested in playing. One day, to my surprise and delight, one of my students invited me to play on his team. Immediately this created a problem. I had to admit to my students that even though there had been genderrole stereotyping, in my case the stereotyping was accurate. I had never played softball before, but I was not backing down. On the following Saturday morning, I suited up and hit the field. A sympathetic male student offered to meet me an hour before game time and introduce me to batting practice. Batting practice is, as it turns out, an opportunity to practice hitting the ball before you actually have to hit it in a game. Thanks to this student and to everyone’s surprise, I got a base hit. Unfortunately, when asked what position I played, I said I would play the same position my brother, Roscoe, had © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


7

played in high school—third base. The young men snickered. I had unknowingly selected one of the most difficult and dangerous positions on the field. Early in the game, a hard line drive headed straight toward me and made a loud crack as it hit my shin. The ball bounced off my shin into my glove. I made the play but limped off the field. On the last day of class, my students awarded me with a softball that they had all autographed. I share this story because it demonstrates what has characterized a lot of my work experiences: taking on a task I didn’t know how to do, doing it anyway, and learning what there was to learn to get the job done. In addition to teaching the course in gender-based discrimination, I also taught courses in evidence and legislation. The legislation seminar was a wonderful adventure. I cotaught the course with a member of the Ohio House of Representatives, who arranged internships for the students. Our students worked for both Republicans and Democrats, on committee staffs and for lobbyists. The students had a full view of the legislative process from virtually every perspective. Occasionally, I gave testimony before the legislature based on research by and in collaboration with my students. As the only Black professor and as one of only two women professors at the law school, I was in great demand for speaking engagements and media events. At this time, President Jimmy Carter’s proposal to include women in a national service program was receiving wide attention. One day after class, one of my students came back into the classroom and said a news crew was waiting for me in the hallway. I opened the door of the classroom and saw only a bright light and a microphone. A voice from behind the microphone said, ‘‘Professor Howard, do you have any comment on President Carter’s proposal to require women to register for national service?’’ I said, ‘‘Aren’t you going to at least say ‘hello’ and introduce yourself?’’ My politician-colleague grabbed my arm, pulled me back into the classroom, and closed the door. He said, ‘‘If you are going to speak to the press, you have to be nice.’’ I got the message and returned to the interview with a neat sound bite. My colleague said I was a natural. Shortly thereafter, I debated the head of the Ohio State ROTC on whether women should be drafted into military service. THE WHITE HOUSE I received an invitation in February 1980 to visit the White House as part of a delegation from the group Ohio Democratic Women. This was when American hostages were being held in Iran, and President Carter stayed in the White House to work on their release, even as the presidential campaign was moving into high gear. I called the RSVP © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

8


number to accept the invitation, and the voice that answered said, ‘‘Linda Howard! Well, we finally found you. Come to Washington. We need you here.’’ The voice belonged to a woman with whom I had worked in Senator Bentsen’s office. During those 2 days in Washington, I met the women who were making history in the Carter administration: Women’s Bureau Director Alexis Herman, Assistant to the President Sarah Weddington, Assistant Housing and Urban Development Secretary Donna Shalala, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and several others. Sarah Weddington interviewed me for a position in her office on a Sunday at 8:30 A.M. About 6 weeks later, I was driving my Mazda from Columbus, Ohio, back to Washington to start my fourth job: a member of President Jimmy Carter’s White House staff. I took a leave of absence from Ohio State to serve for a year as executive director of the Interdepartmental Task Force on Women. My 35member staff conducted research, created legislative proposals, and educated the public about issues affecting women. A major focus was to develop a new Small Business Administration (SBA) program that provided technical services, access to capital, and guidance for doing business with the government for women who were business owners. That year was marked by many speeches, meetings, briefings, and dinner parties. While working at the White House, I completed a law review article about the rights of women who were being fired or demoted from high-paying manufacturing jobs that exposed them to toxic chemicals that could damage their ability to bear healthy children. In the fall of 1980, I sat in a Georgetown restaurant with Donna Shalala, who, by then, had been named president of Hunter College of the City University of New York. Donna offered me the job of counsel of the president at Hunter. INTERNATIONAL SPEAKING TOUR In the spring of 1981, I left Washington and returned to Columbus for a semester to fulfill my commitment to return to law teaching at Ohio State and to prepare to fulfill yet another dream. In April and May 1981, I traveled to New Zealand, Japan, and India to give presentations on American civil rights law. I delivered the paper ‘‘Civil Rights and Remedies’’ at the New Zealand International Conference on Law at the invitation of my law school mate Bruce Robertson (now Justice Robertson of the High Court of New Zealand). I was a featured speaker at the conference in the city of Dunedin about the legal basis for and technical operation of remedies that were available in civil rights cases in the United States but not in other parts of the world. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


9

The conference organizers were particularly interested in affirmative action and in the attorneys’ fees that were awarded to the prevailing party in federal discrimination lawsuits. This was the first year that women were allowed to attend the official conference dinner, and I was the first woman to deliver the toast to the bench and bar, a highly anticipated traditional after-dinner speech. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission sponsored my visit to several other New Zealand cities. Early one morning, a group of Maori women who were not on my official itinerary arrived at my hotel room and requested a meeting. They took me to a sacred meeting house, where they spent several hours sharing their concerns. They spoke of the gradual but unmistakable loss of their culture and their mistrust of the mandatory Pakeha (the Maori word for White New Zealander) educational system. They described how their children learned English but lost their facility with the native Maori language and learned the Pakeha’s version of history. They were also deeply concerned about the health care system, which ignored traditional Maori remedies, dismissed the healing skills of Maori women, and excluded Maori women from their traditional role as primary health care providers for their people. I doubt that a male visitor would have been granted this extraordinary access. My 2-week visits to Japan and India were sponsored by the United States Information Agency (USIA), which was headed at the time by John Reinhardt, a friend and colleague of my parents’ at Virginia State College (now University). My 2 weeks in Japan were beautiful and revealing. I addressed groups of lawyers, businessmen, and citizens in seven cities and was treated to an extraordinary visit with the board of trustees and faculty of Kyoto University. I saw few women in professional roles in Japan. India offered a number of encounters with women in professional and leadership roles. In visits to Ahmedabad and Calcutta, I met a young woman in a diplomacy-related position and a popular activist woman judge. At the Chester Bowles Seminar in Chail on challenges facing democracy, I spoke on social challenges. I met woman newspaper reporters and editors. In Bombay, I was treated to lunch by the Ladies Auxiliary of the Chamber of Commerce. I returned from my international experience with a new appreciation for and pride in the progress the United States has made in the arena of civil rights for women and other groups. I embarked on my trip armed with criticism of U.S. laws and policies. I returned understanding that despite the difficulties and inequities, the United States leads other nations in civil rights laws, including laws that protect access to employment, public accommodations, and political participation. Other nations look to the United States for guidance on and evidence for the design and workability of laws that protect traditionally excluded groups. I also returned with a new confidence in and an excitement © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

10


about the opportunities we have in this country to experiment with new approaches. HUNTER COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK I went directly from my round-the-world trip to my new job at Hunter College, the next great adventure. Hunter’s new president, Donna Shalala, had the reputation of being a great manager, and I wanted to work for a great manager. This job was also a terrific opportunity to put into practice through my writings and speeches the ideas I had developed as a professor. Donna Shalala’s best attributes were that she had a fierce intention to make Hunter a great institution, she related to every employee individually, and she was fearless. Donna was committed to revolutionizing Hunter College and set about doing so in every arena. In my role as counsel, I advised on a wide range of issues, from copyright law to governance to real estate finance. A major project was the addition of three stories to the School of Social Work, located on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. I designed and implemented the college’s affirmative action policy, which resulted in the hiring of anthropologist (and later Spelman College president) Johnnetta Cole, poet Audre Lourde, photographer Roy DeCarava, and a host of luminaries in the physical and social sciences who placed Hunter in the vanguard of progressive educational institutions that were building brilliant and diverse faculties. I also managed the process that resulted in Hunter’s sexual harassment policy and prevention program. The process and the resulting policy represented an innovative model of community collaboration. Hunter’s sexual harassment policy, procedures, and prevention activities had to address the actions and concerns of faculty members, administrators, staff, and students. Any member of the community could be a complainant, an accused, or someone seeking guidance in a situation involving possible sexual harassment. The procedures had to work for faculty-to-faculty harassment, faculty-to-administration harassment, faculty-to-student harassment, administration-to-faculty harassment, administration-to-student harassment, and student-to-student harassment. Complaints brought by students, faculty, and staff required different decision makers in different offices. The faculty and administrative staff were unionized, and we had to safeguard their specific procedural rights. Our initial objectives were to make the procedure simple and to give community members a choice of people with whom they could speak. After close consultation with the president of the college, the staff, and the faculty leadership, we decided to have one central receiving point for all complaints. We created a panel that included men and women, people of different ethnic backgrounds, faculty members from different © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


11

departments, administration and staff members of different ranks, and a student. All Sexual Harassment Panel members were designated to receive complaints. Our next objectives were to educate the members of the college community about their rights and responsibilities under the new policy, foster dialogue, and raise the community’s awareness about how to prevent sexual harassment. Community education would be a central theme, and it was decided that faculty members would lead the Sexual Harassment Panel. We consciously included women’s perspectives and men’s perspectives. We wanted to create a sharing of ideas with a view toward changing values. President Shalala appointed two faculty members, a man and a woman, as coordinators, thus allowing the educational and awareness program to be led by a male-female partnership. Every aspect of the program would reflect the blend, balance, and challenge of that partnership. The panel was the central group within the college community that was responsible for raising awareness about sexual harassment. I trained the panel members in sexual harassment law, investigative procedures, and other issues. The panel met regularly, stayed abreast of changing legal requirements, accepted responsibility for its own ongoing training, investigated complaints swiftly, shared with its own members and with the administration what it learned about the concerns of employees and students, and became a vigorous advocate for the policy and a harassment-free environment at Hunter College. The panel developed strong working relationships within the various administrative offices, spearheaded the addition of new support services for students, and became an important source of recommendations for further actions to improve the program. It enjoyed the respect and confidence of the various campus constituencies. Our original coordinators, Professors Michele Paludi and Richard Barickman, breathed life into the plan and later contributed to the academic literature about sexual harassment on campus and its causes. The Sexual Harassment Panel fulfills the same role at Hunter College as it once did, but now it is called the Sexual Harassment Awareness and Intake Committee. Today, the City University of New York requires each of its 20 constituent colleges to have a sexual harassment committee as part of its sexual harassment policy and procedures. It is a source of enormous pride to have created something that continues to serve its purpose well after 25 years. THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK In November 1989, David Dinkins was elected mayor of New York City. A few days before Thanksgiving, Victor Kovner, the well-known © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

12


First Amendment lawyer and political presence on New York’s West Side whom Dinkins had named his corporation counsel (city attorney), called to ask if I was interested in joining the new administration. In late January 1990, I joined the corporation counsel’s office (also known as the Law Department) as senior counsel and a member of the executive staff. There were two other woman executives, Lorna Goodman and Edith Spivack, who had worked in the department as lawyers since 1934. Lorna Goodman is now Nassau County attorney. At the time, two of the department’s 17 division chiefs were women. Mayor Dinkins was in the process of making changes in the leadership in several agencies, including the New York City Commission on Human Rights. Despite the temporary lack of leadership, action was necessary to address the growing backlog of complaints; this was my first assignment. I had the challenging task of proposing, negotiating, and implementing the initiatives from outside the commission and with no management authority. The staff of the commission, whose cooperation was needed, was reluctant to act before the new commission chairperson was in place and while the incumbent was still in office but not working on the new administration’s initiatives. In the end, we were successful in creating a program that allowed volunteer lawyers to represent complainants before the commission and that resolved individual complaints much more quickly. That was an important lesson in exercising power without force. Within a year, I took responsibility for new attorney hiring, attorney training, and the summer law student internship program. A few years later, I was named Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. After 8 years, I created and managed a continuing legal education program that would serve the 700 attorneys in the Law Department and the approximately 1,000 attorneys working in other city agencies. In my previous jobs, I served as a counselor or ombudsman. I did the same at the Law Department, but I encountered special challenges. One of the areas in which I developed myself at the Law Department was investigating employment discrimination complaints. At Hunter College I had also investigated employment discrimination complaints; it was a role I had not enjoyed. Often, but not always, employment discrimination complaints are the result of misunderstandings, miscommunications, and misperceptions. I had tried to bring people together to understand the situation from another point of view. My early efforts were almost always unsuccessful. Eventually, I realized that I was having difficulties because I was not operating according to my role in the process. I was not doing my job as it had been designed. As a result, it was not working. I had been trying to bring people together, to conciliate, when my job was to investigate. Once I took on investigating, my work became easier. Instead of trying to get people to © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


13

understand one another, I mastered investigating. Once I mastered investigation, I had the perspective and the credibility to recognize the opportunities for bringing people together. Understanding the design of the process and my specific role helped me to be effective. I reasoned that if other people could understand my specific role and the process, then they could also participate more effectively. I incorporated an explanation of my role and an opportunity to ask questions into every conversation and interview in an investigation. My effectiveness in getting the facts and completing investigations soared. My skills as an investigator led one of my colleagues to suggest that I write a book, because my methods were not available anywhere in written form. That suggestion resulted in the publication of my book, The Sexual Harassment Handbook (February 2007). In The Sexual Harassment Handbook, I offer plain-English guidance to working people, supervisors, investigators, and business owners on how to deal with sexual harassment in their particular roles. I also advise people on the specific opportunities for dealing with sexual harassment when there is still a possibility of resolving the situation among the people involved. I launched other innovations at the Law Department, including the following: . A study course for new attorneys who had failed the bar exam. The course dramatically increased the number of our new attorneys who passed the bar exam. . An automated system for regular reporting of city cases. The system allowed the Law Department, for the first time, to report cases by agency, by the legal unit handling the case, or by status, and it addressed a longstanding request from the agencies for written reports on the status of all their cases that were being handled by the Law Department.

PRIVATE PRACTICE AND CONSULTING I left the Law Department after 13 years of service, wrote The Sexual Harassment Handbook, and created a consulting business. I offer employers advice and training in employment discrimination, sexual harassment prevention, and management of a diverse workforce. My expertise also includes managing change in large institutions. My life as a writer and consultant is very different from my life as a lawyer in large public institutions. I spend many more days on my own, writing, marketing, planning, and organizing presentations. I work with different people in different organizations. I am having a broader impact and am offering new ways of operating to different organizations with different issues and concerns. I am committed to transforming organizations and the quality of life of the people who work in and for them.


Chapter 2

Speaking in a ‘‘Man’s World’’: Gender Differences in Communication Styles Susan Basow

At a weekly staff meeting, June said, ‘‘Maybe I’m off base here, but perhaps we could try some type of incentive program for the sales staff? Or something like that, something that will motivate them to sell more? What do you think?’’ After some polite murmuring, the staff members continued to discuss the problem of flat sales. Later in the meeting, James said, ‘‘I know. Motivate the salespeople by giving them rewards based on how much they sell. That should get them excited!’’ Everyone exclaimed about what a great idea this was—everyone except June, who thought, ‘‘Didn’t I already suggest that?’’ What happened here? Was June guilty of ‘‘speaking while female’’ in a majority-male group? In this chapter, we will look at gender differences in communication styles: if, and to what extent, they exist; how they might affect women in the workplace; and communication strategies to improve women’s work experiences. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION STYLES: NOW YOU SEE THEM, NOW YOU DON’T Let’s consider the vignette at the beginning of the chapter. June’s way of presenting her idea was typical, in some ways, of women’s style of communicating: she was tentative in her language and content (‘‘maybe I’m off base,’’ ‘‘perhaps,’’ ‘‘or something like that,’’ and phrasing her statements as questions), wordy, and concerned about what the others thought (‘‘What do you think?’’, an affiliative question). In contrast, James’s utterance was more typical of men: © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

16


assertive (‘‘I know’’) and direct. Although such gender differences in verbal speech have been supported by research as well as anecdote (Leaper & Ayres, 2007; Mulac, 2006; Tannen, 1994), the magnitude of these gender differences is relatively small and is moderated by a host of other variables. Thus, although some generalizations can be made about how men and women ‘‘speak different languages’’ (Tannen, 1990), the actual picture is far more complex. Let’s examine the research findings on gendered patterns in specific types of communications. Affiliative Speech Affiliative speech refers to the use of words to connect with others, such as by expressing agreement, understanding, support, or acknowledgement. Tannen (1994) argues that such speech is typical of women’s more intimate and inclusive approach to communication. In a comprehensive meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in adult speech, Leaper and Ayres (2007) found that although women did indeed tend to use more affiliative speech than men did, the difference was very small. There is actually more than an 85% overlap between men and women in this type of speech. There are circumstances in which the gender difference in affiliative speech is more noticeable (i.e., sizable) than others. In particular, women are more likely to use affiliative speech when talking with other women as opposed to when in groups of both sexes; and also when talking about non-personal topics, self-disclosures, and deliberations rather than when talking about tasks, child-oriented activities, and disagreements. Also important to note is that in Leaper and Ayres’ meta-analysis, there was no condition in which the size of the effect would be considered large (d .8, indicating that the overlap between women and men was less than 53%). Even the largest gender difference in affiliative speech would be considered moderate (d ¼ .44) and that occurred in conversations about non-personal topics. Overall, then, there is more gender similarity than difference with respect to this aspect of speech, but when differences occur, they are typically in the direction of women being more likely than men to use language to connect with others. Thus in the workplace, gender differences in affiliative speech would be least likely in mixed-gender task-focused groups and most likely in women-only groups, when discussing non-personal topics, or when trying to come to a group decision.

Assertive Speech Assertive speech refers to the use of words to achieve a goal or advance one’s personal position, such as by giving information, © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Speaking in a ‘‘Man’s World’’

17

offering directive statements or suggestions, and criticizing another. Tannen (1994) argues that such speech is the province of men, who tend to focus on issues of power and control in interactions with others. Indeed, in Leaper and Ayres’ (2007) meta-analytic review, men were found to use this speech style significantly more than did women, but the gender difference was very small (d ¼ .09), meaning that there was much more gender similarity than difference on this aspect of speech. There were some circumstances in which the size of the gender difference was larger, however. Men were most likely to use this speech style (showing a moderate gender difference) when talking about nonpersonal topics and when talking with strangers as opposed to with people they knew well. In the workplace, then, we might expect men to be more directive and offer more suggestions than women when discussing a workrelated topic in a group of people, especially same-gender others, to whom they are not close. Talkativeness A strongly held cultural stereotype in the United States is that women talk more than men. Research, however, reveals the opposite: Men tend to talk more than women, at least under some circumstances. Leaper and Ayres (2007) found that men were significantly more talkative than women. There appears to be no gender difference in the number of words that men and women speak per day (Mehl, Vazire, Ramirez-Esparza, Slatcher, & Pennebaker, 2007). The difference was greatest in discussions of impersonal topics or in disagreements and was reversed when self-disclosures were included—women talked more in those circumstances. Men also talked more than women in close relationships than they did with strangers, and they talked in mixed groups more than in same-gender groups. In the workplace, this could mean that men will try to dominate conversations when they are talking with one woman or several women. Other Verbal Behaviors There is some evidence that women, compared to men, tend to speak more formally and politely (e.g., ‘‘please’’) and to use less profanity (Henley, 1977; Kramer, 1974). Tannen (1994) describes women’s speech as more tentative than men’s (‘‘maybe I’m off base’’), often ending with a question (‘‘What do you think?’’) or a questioning tone (‘‘Maybe we should do this?’’), whereas men are less likely to ask questions, perhaps because doing so indicates a lack of knowledge or control. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

18


Nonverbal Communication Communication occurs not only via words but also through body language (e.g., nods, gestures, body position), facial expressions (e.g., smiles, frowns), and paralinguistic cues (e.g., speed and timbre of speech). Like spoken language, nonverbal communication also shows gender differences, but again they tend to vary with a number of factors. In general, women tend to nod and smile more than men do, and their voices tend to be rated higher in warmth than men’s voices (Hall & Friedman, 1999; Johnson, 1994). These qualities enhance the relational aspect of communication; in that regard, they parallel the finding that women are more likely than men to use affiliative speech. Similarly, men’s vocal utterances are rated higher than women’s on dominance (Hall & Friedman, 1999), paralleling the finding that men are more likely than women to use assertive speech. Body movements too can reflect confidence and dominance (e.g., relaxed gestures, taking up space, initiating handshakes, maintaining eye contact while speaking), and these behaviors are more common in men than in women (Henley, 1977). Smiling is a particularly gendered nonverbal behavior. Although even women in higher status positions tend to smile more than their male counterparts (Hall & Friedman, 1999), smiling is more related to positive affect for high-status and equal-status workers than it is for low-status workers. Indeed, in many low status service jobs (wait-staff, supermarket check-out people, airline attendants), smiling may be a job requirement, especially for women (Hecht & LaFrance, 1998; Hochschild, 1983). Women appear to have an advantage over men in accurately decoding the nonverbal cues of others, at least when such cues are not deliberately deceptive (Hall, 1978; Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979). This skill can enhance women’s affiliative abilities and be related to their lower status. The issue of women’s status is important in examining gendered communication styles, because such styles do vary by status. Women in the workforce typically hold lower status jobs than men do. Thus, what appears as gender differences might actually be status differences. To examine this, we will next explore various explanations for gender differences in communication styles.

EXPLANATIONS FOR GENDERED PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION Gendered patterns of communication can be attributed to socialization and/or contextual factors. Both types of explanations have received some research support. Socialization explanations emphasize the fact that boys and girls are raised in different ways and consequently learn the communication © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


19

style that is considered appropriate for their gender (Chodorow, 1978; Leaper & Ayres, 2007; Maccoby, 1998; Tannen, 1990). Because girls are usually raised by women and are viewed as future mothers, they tend to develop a sense of self in relationship to others. These affiliative tendencies are further reinforced in play with other girls, which tends to emphasize cooperation and connection (e.g., playing ‘‘house’’). Boys, who are also usually raised by women, must develop a sense of self by disconnecting from their female caretakers and forging their identity through autonomous activities. Play with other boys reinforces assertive acts, competitiveness, and dominance (e.g., ‘‘king of the hill’’). Furthermore, affiliative speech tends to be modeled by and reinforced for females, whereas assertive communication tends to be modeled by and reinforced for males. Thus, gendered communication styles are learned and perpetuated. This type of explanation is supported by the general pattern of gender differences and the relatively greater strength of these patterns in same-gender rather than mixed groups (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). Yet the fact that gender differences in communication vary by situation and can be over-shadowed by gender-role differences (i.e., the degree to which men and women actually possess gender-linked traits) suggests that this explanation is insufficient by itself (Basow & Rubenfeld, 2003; Edwards & Hamilton, 2004; Leaper & Ayres, 2007). A contextual explanation emphasizes that gendered behavior depends on the specific social situation (Deaux & Major, 1987; Leaper & Ayres, 2007). For example, in situations with strangers, individuals might rely on traditional gender scripts as guidelines for behavior. This supports the finding that gender differences in affiliative and assertive speech are more likely when individuals are talking with strangers than with people they know. Gender also is confounded with status, and, as noted above, status affects communication styles (Henley, 1977). For example, individuals with more power in a situation (e.g., employer over employee, manager over subordinate) tend to use more assertive speech and body language and to talk more than those who have less power. In contrast, those who have less power tend to use more affiliative speech and submissive behaviors and be better at decoding nonverbal communication than those who have more power. These status differences parallel frequently found gender differences (Crawford & Kaufman, 2006; Kalbfleish & Herold, 2006; Wood & Karten, 1986). Thus, what looks like gender differences in communication styles might really reflect status differences, especially in the workplace, where men tend to hold higher status positions than women do. It is likely that both explanations contribute to gendered patterns in communication style, but gender is sometimes a stronger influence than status (Hall, 2006; Hall & Friedman, 1999). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

20


THE EFFECTS OF GENDERED COMMUNICATION STYLES IN THE WORKPLACE Unfortunately, most of the research on gender differences in communication focuses on college students or couples in intimate relationships. However, we can supplement the few workplace studies with extrapolations from other research settings to examine issues in the workplace related to gendered communication styles. Given the generally small and variable nature of gender differences in communication styles, it perhaps is not too surprising that direct studies of workers show a similar pattern of small to nonexistent gender differences in the workplace. For example, men and women in similar positions in the workplace are equally concerned about fairness (Hale, 1999; Lentz, 1986), the quality of communication with supervisors (Amason & Allen, 1997), and the need to understand the perspectives of others (Hale, 1999). Men and women in similar positions also show no difference in how they try to influence superiors (O’Neil, 2004) or in their views of the best way to cope with a job-related conflict (Mai-Dalton, Summers-Feldman, & Mitchell, 1979). Despite these similarities, there is some research that suggests that similar communication behaviors can have different effects, depending on the gender of the speaker, the gender of the person spoken to, and the nature of the interaction (e.g., same-gender or opposite-gender). Furthermore, men and women are typically not in similar workplace positions. Thus, gender is often confounded with status; what looks like gender differences can actually be differences in speech between highstatus and low-status individuals. Given the overlap, women in highstatus positions can face particular communication challenges because their organizational status conflicts with their gender-role status. Perceptions of Gendered Communication Patterns Given the tendency for women to use more affiliative speech and for men to use more assertive speech, it is perhaps not surprising that these behaviors have become stereotypic expectations. Thus, women whose communication style is not affiliative might be seen as violating gendered expectations, which is generally perceived as negative by others (Carli, LaFleur, & Loeber, 1995; Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1991; Friedman & Yorio, 2006). For example, speech and behavior that is seen as a sign of strength and confidence in a man could be perceived as evidence of ‘‘bitchiness’’ in a woman. Yet if women do conform to more ‘‘feminine’’ modes of communicating, others may perceive them as lacking competence or leadership potential. This catch-22 becomes even more complicated when other variables are considered—for example, whether the perceiver is a man or a woman or what the nature of the task is. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


21

Women who conform to gendered communication stereotypes (using affiliative speech, talking less, and using deferential nonverbal behaviors) tend to be liked by others and viewed as more sociable, but they are not necessarily viewed as competent (Carli et al., 1995; Juodvalkis, Grefe, Hogue, Svyantek, & DeLamarter, 2003; Kuhlenschmidt & Conger, 1988; Lindsey & Zakahi, 2006; Rudman, 1998). If women use a more dominant communication style, they might be penalized on likability and sociability ratings, but they are also more likely to receive higher competency ratings and make a better overall impression. Because career advancement is more keyed to perceptions of competence than likability, it is not surprising that the 1970s saw a surge of ‘‘management training’’ workshops for women that focused on teaching women how to change from an affiliative communication style to an assertive one (as well as how to ‘‘dress for success’’ and the like). Alas, communicating in the accepted male-stereotypic way does not always work for women in the ways that it works for men. Carli (1990) found that women were more influential with men when they spoke in a tentative style rather than in an assertive style, although the latter style was more effective with women. This pattern might reflect men’s greater tendency to hold traditional views of women and their discomfort with women who do not incorporate traditional ‘‘feminine’’ behavior. Similar results have been found in a variety of contexts in which men have been asked to evaluate women (Basow, 1998; Glick & Fiske, 1999). Because men are more likely to be in supervisory positions, in which the evaluation of subordinates is critical for job retention or advancement, it is not always the case that ‘‘speaking like a man’’ is the best communication strategy for women. Ann Hopkins found this out the hard way. In 1982, Ann Hopkins was denied partnership in the Price Waterhouse accounting firm because some of her evaluators thought that she was not ‘‘feminine enough,’’ especially in the ways she talked, looked, and acted (Fiske et al., 1991). The fact that she had demonstrated proficiency at her job—bringing in more business and accumulating more billable hours than her male counterparts and earning praise for being hardworking and exacting—appeared to matter less than her ‘‘macho’’ interpersonal style. Fortunately, in 1989 the Supreme Court, aided by an amicus curiae brief on gender stereotyping research filed by the American Psychological Association, found that Hopkins had been a victim of gender-based discrimination. Still, the issue remains that women who work with men probably have to communicate differently than men do to be perceived positively. Let’s examine three key workplace issues in which gendered communication styles can be particularly important for women: applying for a job and negotiating one’s salary, making decisions and handling conflict, and serving as a supervisor or leader. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

22


Applying for a Job and Negotiating a Salary Given the finding that gender differences in communication styles are particularly noticeable with strangers and in discussions of impersonal topics, gender differences seem likely to occur when applying for a job and dealing with a specific job offer. Such differences, especially if combined with a less confident attitude, appear to make women less likely than men to negotiate a job offer, especially a salary offer. In fact, Babcock and Laschever (2003) found that much of the salary differential between women and men is related to women’s reluctance to negotiate their initial salary offer. These researchers found that women are more than twice as likely as men to feel apprehensive about negotiating. As a result, men initiate negotiations about four times as often as women do; consequently, their starting salaries are higher. Given that starting salaries serve as the basis for future raises, what starts out as a barely noticeable salary differential can add up to more than half a million dollars in lost earnings over a woman’s lifetime. Negotiating a salary offer or job conditions generally requires an assertive attitude and communication style. It is just this type of speech that men engage in more than women do, especially with strangers and regarding impersonal issues. Women’s greater affiliative tendencies in such situations can work to their detriment, because they might be more concerned about offending the person making the job offer or appearing self-centered or ungrateful than with their own career and financial status. For example, Heatherington and colleagues (1993) found that women tended to be more modest about their achievements in public situations than in private ones because of self-presentation concerns. Although women certainly need to learn to negotiate job and salary offers in an assertive but nonaggressive manner, strong and assertive women are not always perceived positively, at least not by men (Carli, 1990; Carli et al., 1995; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). Female employees, more than male employees, are expected to avoid conflict, maintain relationships, and facilitate interactions (Wilson, Lizzio, & Zauner, 2001). Still, assertive women are more likely to be hired. For example, in a simulated job situation (Juodvalkis et al., 2003), women who used a more dominant communication style, as opposed to a more submissive style, were rated as less likable and sociable but as more competent and hirable. For men, dominant communication styles were associated with positive ratings on all measures: likability, sociability, competence, and hirability. Rudman (1998) found similar results for the different effects of self-promotion in women and men. Thus, women often have to trade off being viewed as likable in order to be hired, especially at a salary that matches that of a male counterpart.



23

Making Decisions and Handling Conflict Because women have a tendency to emphasize the affiliative style of communication and men the assertive style, it is perhaps not surprising that research finds that women and men tend to reach decisions by using different communication styles. Studies that examined the deliberation process consistently found small but significant gender differences in affiliative and assertive speech in the expected directions (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). In addition, men tended to talk significantly more than women did in such situations, whereas women were more likely than men to take turns when speaking. Tannen (1994), in her observations of different workplace conversations, concurs: Women tend to consider the viewpoints of others and the impact on others when making decisions, whereas men tend to focus more on their own viewpoints. Like June in the vignette at the beginning of this chapter, women in predominantly male work environments often report difficulty in having their ideas heard; indeed, many report feeling ignored (Hale, 1999). This might be the result of their male colleagues’ tendency to use (and prefer) assertive rather than affiliative speech during deliberations. Different dynamics can exist, depending on whether communication is in same-gender or mixed-gender groups. As Leaper and Ayres’ (2007) meta-analytic review found, affiliative and assertive speech may be greatest in same-gender groups, whereas talkativeness by men is greatest when at least one woman is in the group. Men’s need to assert dominance over women could be responsible for their greater talkativeness and for their greater use of patronizing language in mixed-gender rather than same-gender groups (Crawford & Kaufman, 2006). Women appear to use more tentative language and disclaimers than men when they are in groups with at least one man (Carli, 1990). Both men and women smile more with women (Johnson, 1994). Indeed, women in all-female groups have the highest rates of smiling, whereas men in all-male groups have the lowest rates. When we examine communications specifically geared to resolving disagreements, a familiar pattern is found: Men tend to talk more, and in a more assertive manner, than women do (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). Women do not, however, appear to use more affiliative speech than men do when discussing disagreements. Despite the fact that women are expected to avoid conflict and facilitate interpersonal relationships (Tannen, 1990; Wilson et al., 2001), men and women in the workplace appear to deal with conflict with their superiors in similar ways: smoothing over (i.e., minimizing differences), making compromises, and confronting (i.e., bringing the problem out into the open) (Renwick, 1977).


24


Serving as a Supervisor or Leader Being a supervisor, manager, or task leader is a nontraditional role for women, who typically hold subordinate positions in work and gender relations. Furthermore, the expectations that people have of managers—to be strong, decisive, assertive, and dominant—are traits that are more typically associated with men than with women (Eagly, 2007; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Kalbfleish & Herold, 2006). Thus, women in such positions face particular challenges, especially if their subordinates are men. Given different gender socialization experiences and different sets of expectations for women and men, it perhaps is not surprising that women leaders, compared to male leaders, tend to show more positive affect and warmth (Hall & Friedman, 1999). They are more likely to emphasize communication, cooperation, and subordinate involvement (Cowan, Wilcox, & Nykodym, 1990; Fox & Schuhmann, 1999). In fact, a meta-analysis of 45 studies of different types of leadership styles found that women were more likely than men to use a transformational style (one in which the leader supports and empowers her followers, inspiring them to reach their potential) as well as provide contingent rewards for a subordinate’s satisfactory performance (Eagly et al., 2003). In contrast, male leaders were more likely than their female counterparts to use punishment to shape followers’ behaviors and to be uninvolved at critical moments (i.e., a laissez-faire style). Although the magnitude of these gender differences was small (meaning that men and women leaders were more similar than different), the pattern of results is in line with findings regarding gender differences in communication, with women leaders more likely than men leaders to express support and encouragement of subordinates, and men leaders more likely to use assertive and dominant communication styles. Although men often claim that they would not want to work for a woman because women are overly emotional (Eagly, 2007; Hale, 1999), when studies examine men who actually have women bosses, the picture is quite different. Men are as satisfied with a female supervisor as they are with a male, or they are more satisfied. The same picture appears for women subordinates. The greater satisfaction with female compared to male leaders is typically because of women leaders’ greater use of a democratic or transformational leadership style (Eagly 2007; Kalbfleish & Herold, 2006). Although different situations may require different types of leadership at different times, the meta-analysis by Eagly and colleagues (2003) found that the behaviors more typical of women than men leaders (i.e., a transformational leadership style and use of contingent reward) are exactly the qualities associated with maximum effectiveness. In contrast, the behaviors more typical of



25

men leaders (i.e., a laissez-faire style or a focus on problems and failures) were either ineffective or had negative effects (see chapter 4 in this volume for more detail on women as bosses). Although men and women might be equally satisfied with their supervisors regardless of the supervisor’s gender, it is still possible that there are different communication styles whose effectiveness depends on both the gender of the supervisor and the gender of the subordinate. For example, in a simulated work environment, LaPlante and Ambady (2002) found that the productivity and work satisfaction of subordinates varied with the verbal and nonverbal behaviors as well as the gender of their supervisor. Male supervisors received the highest ratings for productivity and work satisfaction when they gave feedback in a positive tone, even if the content was negative (e.g., ‘‘Aren’t you through yet?’’). This was especially true with male subordinates, perhaps because men become particularly defensive if they feel put down by other men. In contrast, female supervisors received the highest ratings for productivity and work satisfaction when they gave feedback with positive content (e.g., ‘‘You seem like you’re getting it’’), even if the tone was negative. Wilson and colleagues (2001) found similar results when they examined the social rules for handling a ‘‘pushy’’ subordinate: It was viewed as more socially acceptable for male managers to use formal authority to put a subordinate in his or her place, whereas female managers were expected to avoid ‘‘putting down’’ the subordinate. Women managers were expected to avoid conflict and facilitate interaction. Renwick (1977), in her study of managers, found that female supervisors were perceived by their subordinates as less likely to resolve conflicts through force (i.e., using power to force acceptance of their point of view) than their male counterparts. On the whole, however, both male and female supervisors were perceived to handle conflicts in similar ways, through compromise and confrontation. These two strategies were associated with subordinates’ positive attitudes toward conflict. The gender composition of the workplace may make a difference in what behaviors are used or are effective. For example, in Renwick’s (1977) study of 100 middle managers, supervisors of both sexes were perceived as more likely to use compromise and smoothing over as conflict resolution strategies when dealing with female as opposed to male subordinates. Carli (1990) found that female speakers were more influential with men when they spoke more tentatively than assertively, but the reverse was true when the women speakers spoke with women (i.e., they were more influential when they spoke more assertively than tentatively). Interestingly, male speakers were equally influential regardless of whether they spoke in an assertive or tentative fashion, to women or to men. These findings help explain why women’s leadership effectiveness is rated lower than men’s only in © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

26


workplace environments that are male-dominated or traditionally masculine (Eagly, 2007). It is in just such situations that stereotyped gendered expectations play the greatest role. It is important not to overstate gender differences in the communication styles of male and female leaders, however. There is a considerable overlap between women and men in their communication and leadership styles because these are often moderated more by status, role, or situational requirements than by gender. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR WOMEN IN A ‘‘MAN’S WORLD’’ As the above review indicates, gendered communication patterns in the workplace are complex. In general, women and men communicate in ways more similar than different, although situational factors (e.g., type of communication, mixed- or same-gender group, or status) can exaggerate differences. Furthermore, what styles are most effective will vary as a function of the gender of the communicator, the target of that communication, and the gender-typing of the situation. What advice, then, would be useful for women who aspire to be successful in a workplace dominated by men? Dell (1992) argues that part of what has hindered women from reaching the top positions in organizations is that they do not adopt men’s style of communicating. Because men have been the traditional power holders in organizations, it is their style of communicating that has predominated. Thus, women who want to break through the ‘‘glass ceiling’’ have to adopt some of men’s communication characteristics— that is, they have to focus less on the needs of the listener and more on expressing their own opinions and ideas. Women (like men) must talk about their accomplishments with confidence to achieve recognition for them. Babcock and Laschever (2003) concur that women have to ask for what they want in job assignments and especially in salaries. Negotiation is expected in the workplace, and when women do not engage in it, they suffer the consequences: lower salaries, lower job status, and slower advancement. Nevertheless, simply adopting men’s communication style will probably not work as well for women as for men. As Ann Hopkins found out in the famous Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case, women who engage in the same behaviors as their male counterparts may be perceived negatively, especially by men (Fiske et al., 1991). Although women have to communicate in assertive ways to be perceived as competent and to be hired, unless they also use an affiliative communication style, they might not be liked, at least not by men (Carli et al., 1995; Juodvalkis et al., 2003; Kuhlenschmidt & Conger, 1988; Lindsey & Zakahi, 2006; Rudman, 1998.) © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


27

Thus, women must master a flexible style of communication, especially when dealing with men. Babcock and Laschever (2003) offer several strategies for women to ask for what they want in ways that consider the relationship as well. It is important to remember that true assertiveness involves putting one’s own needs, opinions, and desires on a par with that of others. It does not mean putting oneself above another person—that would be aggressive behavior—but it also does not meaning putting one’s own needs, opinions, and desires below another’s. Women who learn an assertive style and who accept the necessity to negotiate to achieve their objectives can be successful, at least in some organizational contexts (Tannen, 1994; Yoder, 2001). Unlike male leaders, however, women leaders have to work hard to find ways to balance authority and friendliness (Carli et al., 1995; Friedman & Yorio, 2006; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). Through verbal (e.g., affiliative speech) and nonverbal (e.g., smiling) cues, women must signal that they are sociable as well as competent. However, women must be wary of expressing too much emotion in the workplace. Because of gender-role stereotypes, ‘‘emotional’’ women are perceived very negatively (Friedman & Yorio, 2006; Hale, 1999). Simply understanding gendered communication styles may facilitate workplace dynamics. As Tannen (1994) describes, unless women understand that what appears to be hostile behavior by men (such as bantering, playful put-downs, jockeying for dominance) is simply part of men’s conversational rituals, women may become defensive and either hostile or alienated. If men do not recognize that when women downplay their own authority and avoid taking credit for their achievement they are engaging in a female-style conversational ritual, men may view women as less competent and accomplished than they are. Certainly, recent years have seen an increasing number of women climbing the career ladder, especially in middle management. And, as studies by Eagly and her colleagues (2007; Eagly et al., 2003) have shown, women typically are very effective leaders, managing in ways that empower their subordinates and achieve the organization’s objectives. Gender differences in actual communication and leadership behaviors are slight, although expectations of gender differences are strong. The situations that remain most problematic for women are the ones in strongly male-dominated or culturally masculine organizations, such as the military or high-status political offices, probably because these conflict most with stereotypes of women. Eagly (2007) notes, however, that favorable attitudes toward women as leaders have increased in the last 50 years, and it may just be a matter of time before the playing field levels out even more for women in the workplace. Whether true gender equality or neutrality will be achieved remains to be seen. I appreciate Ashley Rieder’s research assistance for this chapter. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

28


REFERENCES Amason, P., & Allen, M. W. (1997). Intraorganizational communication, perceived organizational support, and gender. Sex Roles, 37, 955–977. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias and teaching styles. In L. H. Collins, J. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Career strategies for women in academe (pp. 135–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). ‘‘Troubles talk:’’ Effects of gender and gender typing. Sex Roles, 48, 183–187. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 941–951. Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cowan, K. M., Wilcox, J. R., & Nykodym, N. (1990). A comparative analysis of female-male communication styles as a function of organizational level. Communications, 15, 291–309. Crawford, M., & Kaufman, M. R. (2006). Sex differences versus social processes in the construction of gender. In K. Dindia & P. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 179–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. Dell, S. (1992). A communication-based theory of the glass-ceiling: Rhetorical sensitivity and upward mobility within the technical organization. Transactions on Professional Communication, 35, 230–235. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. Edwards, R., & Hamilton, M. A. (2004). You need to understand my gender role: An empirical test of Tannen’s model of gender and communication. Sex Roles, 50, 491–504. Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of gender stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060. Fox, R. L., & Schuhmann, R. A. (1999). Gender and local government: A comparison of women and men city managers. Public Administration Review, 59, 231–242. Friedman, C., & Yorio, K. (2006). The girl’s guide to being a boss (without being a bitch). New York: Morgan Road Books. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 365–398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



29

Hale, M. (1999). He says, she says: Gender and worklife. Public Administration Review, 59, 410–423. Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857. Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal behavior, status, and gender: How do we understand their relations? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 384–391. Hall, J. A., & Friedman, G. B. (1999). Status, gender, and nonverbal behavior: A study of structured interactions between employees of a company. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1082–1091. Heatherington, L., Daubman, K. A., Bates, C., Ahn, A., Brown, H., & Preston, C. (1993). Two investigations of ‘‘female modesty’’ in achievement situations. Sex Roles, 29, 739–754. Hecht, M. A., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effect of power and gender on amount and type of smiling. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1332–1352. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. Henley, N. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Johnson, C. (1994). Gender, legitimate authority, and leader-subordinate conversations. American Sociological Review, 59, 122–135. Juodvalkis, J. L., Grefe, B. A., Hogue, M., Svyantek, D. J., & DeLamarter, W. (2003). The effects of job stereotypes, applicant gender, and communication style on ratings in screening interviews. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 67–84. Kalbfleish, P. J., & Herold, A. L. (2006). Sex, power, and communication. In K. Dindia & P. J. Canary (Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 299–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kramer, C. (1974). Women’s speech: Separate but unequal. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 14–24. Kuhlenschmidt, S., & Conger, J. C. (1988). Behavioral components of social competence in females. Sex Roles, 18, 107–112. LaPlante, D., & Ambady, N. (2002). Saying it like it isn’t: Mixed messages from men and women in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2435–2457. Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363. Lentz, T. M. (1986). Communication difficulties in a large federal agency. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 303–319. Lindsey, A. E., & Zakahi, W. R. (2006). Perceptions of men and women departing from conversational sex-role stereotypes. In K. Dindia & P. J. Canary (Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 281–298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


30


Mai-Dalton, R. R., Summers-Feldman, S., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Effect of employee gender and behavior style on the evaluations of male and female banking executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 221–226. Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317, 82. Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In K. Dindia & P. J. Canary (Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 127–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. O’Neil, J. (2004). Effects of gender and power on PR managers’ upward influence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 127–144. Renwick, P. A. (1977). The effects of sex differences on the perception and management of superior-subordinate conflict: An exploratory study. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 19, 403–415. Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37, 271–285. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow. Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from nine to five: How women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New York: Morrow. Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: What if women talk more like men? Sex Roles, 12, 993–1007. Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A. J., & Zauner, S. (2001). Social rules for managing attempted interpersonal domination in the workplace: Influence of status and gender. Sex Roles, 44, 129–154. Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 341–347. Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.


Chapter 3

On Work-Life Balance: In My Own Voice Michelle Wildgrube

When I was initially approached to write this piece, I mentioned the task to my 11-year-old daughter. She responded, ‘‘You can’t do that, you don’t have the time.’’ I think her perception is right, but somehow I keep trying to squeeze the most time out of every minute, every hour, every day. I’m a wife, a mother, and an attorney. I have a great husband and two wonderful girls, ages 8 and 11. I am a partner in a small law firm in Niskayuna, New York. I have two law partners, both women, and our law firm is an all-women firm. I enjoy all my roles— mom, wife, and attorney—and I am constantly challenged to find balance in my life to make it work. It’s not easy to be a mother and an attorney in private practice. Some days, I wish I’d chosen a different profession, maybe one that’s more family-friendly. Teaching or nursing might offer benefits to my family, summers off or a flexible schedule, that law does not. In college, I remember being encouraged by my mother to carefully consider my career choice and the effect it would have on my family. I also remember thinking, ‘‘This is the ’80s, it’s different now.’’ I remember thinking that times had changed since my mother graduated from college in the 1960s, and I was certain that life for women would be easier by the time I had children. In college I minored in women’s studies, and I knew that the research showed that more women than ever were working outside the home. It appeared to be a logical conclusion that my community would support my needs as a working woman. However, I completely underestimated the career that I was preparing to undertake. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

32


I graduated from Rutgers College in the winter of 1988 and started law school at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law in the fall of 1989. At my law school, we had nearly equal numbers of men and women; I thought that boded well for my future career. I met my husband in law school, and we graduated together in 1992. After law school I accepted a position in a small law firm. My goal as a young attorney was to be a partner in the law firm—that seemed to be a reasonable goal, and it was not an unusual one for a young attorney. The firm culture dictated long hours for all attorneys—not just associates, but partners as well. I was expected to be in the office early, and leaving before 6:30 P.M. was frowned upon. In addition, I frequently worked on Saturdays, which was also expected. The work never stopped. Private practice is very different from government or municipal practice, where the attorneys work a regular schedule, often 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. There are great benefits with such work, but I have to say that I enjoy the networking of private practice, the ability to see clients and help them, and the opportunity to be involved with my community as part of my work. In order to represent my clients well, I spent long hours learning the intricacies of the law. I had learned much about the law and legal theories at law school; now I had to learn the process and the application of the law. In addition, I was required by my firm to maintain a heavy caseload to ensure that I would be profitable for the firm. There was always pressure to bill the clients, and because I was new, not all of my time could be billed because much of my time was spent learning what experienced attorneys could rattle off from experience. Because of the learning curve, I had to put in long hours in order to bill a reasonable amount of time. These long hours were at the expense of my personal life. I gave up early mornings, early evenings, and weekends with friends and family so that I could get in my billable hours. My husband and I became engaged in March 1993. I remember struggling to put together our wedding while I was working. The week before the wedding, in October 1993, I requested an additional unpaid day off to prepare for the wedding and visit with out-of-town guests. My request was denied. I am certain that the concern was the loss of billable hours and the precedent that such an absence might set for the firm. I have to say that I’m still bitter about that; it’s a day I’ll never get back. It’s one of the things that I think of now as I consider requests from staff for days off. A couple years after getting married, my husband and I began to think about starting a family. I thought about the impact that pregnancy and childbirth might have on my work, but I assumed that I’d be able to manage a young family. I had some concerns because I had observed that it was not easy to be a pregnant associate attorney at the firm. I had watched a coworker struggle to work the expected hours © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

On Work-Life Balance

33

while good-naturedly managing a high-risk pregnancy. This coworker was also the first female associate in the firm to have a baby, which is somewhat surprising, given the fact that the firm had been in existence for more than 80 years. Overall, it seemed to me that the firm was not supportive. I noticed a change in attitude toward my coworker: She was no longer included in discussions about long-term planning, and comments were made about her working fewer hours. No concessions were made because of her pregnancy, meetings were scheduled for her before and after work hours, and she was expected to be at those meetings. Despite this, I continued at the firm, hoping that my experience would be different, hoping that ground had been broken by my coworker and that my path would be easier. In 1995, I became pregnant with our first daughter, Anna. When I became pregnant, I decided to wait as long as possible before telling the partners at my firm; after all, I didn’t want to suffer the same treatment as the last pregnant attorney in the firm. Fortunately, my daughter and my body aided me in this endeavor, because I wasn’t big at first. I also had the help of a friend who loaned me all her clothes, which were just a little bigger than my clothes but were not maternity clothes. To the outside world, it just looked as if I’d gotten a new wardrobe. I waited and waited and waited to share my news while continuing to pretend that it was business as usual. Finally, my parents, who live in the same town and interacted with many of the same people that the partners in the firm did, begged me to tell the partners. At that point, I was nearly 6 months pregnant. I continued to work until the day I went into labor, 7 days past my due date, because I didn’t want to waste any valuable maternity leave time without a baby. The last few weeks of my pregnancy were the only time that any of the partners encouraged me to go home from work at 5 P.M.; I think I made them nervous, hanging out, almost ready to give birth. I took a 6-week maternity leave, followed by 1 week of ‘‘vacation’’ and 2 weeks of unpaid leave. Because the firm was small, the Americans with Disabilities Act did not apply, so I was unable to take any more leave. I also agreed, when I took the maternity leave, that I would continue to work at the firm for a year after the maternity leave ended, or else I would refund the firm the 6 weeks’ paid salary I’d received while I was on leave. When I returned from maternity leave, I found that it was challenging to be the working mother of an infant. I was nursing my daughter all night and working as hard as I could all day. I hated getting to work early and leaving late. I tried to curb my hours at work during the week, and I hardly worked on weekends. I was stressed out a lot of the time, either worrying about work or worrying about my family. Before having children, another female attorney had told me that she © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

34


had days when she felt sure she was doing nothing well. I could now understand the struggle and challenge involved in spending quality time with my family and doing my job in a competent manner. There were days when it seemed as if everyone was getting short shrift. After my daughter turned 1 year old and my year-long obligation to the firm was complete, I asked the partners if I could work part-time. I wanted to spend more time with my daughter and my husband. I proposed working 5 days a week until 3 P.M. I thought that would be a good compromise—I’d be in the office for most of the day, and I could spend time with my daughter in the late afternoon, avoiding (I hoped) the evening rush of day care, dinner preparation, and bedtime routine. My request was denied. I started to consider my options. Unfortunately, at the time, which was 1997, I didn’t know of any attorneys in private practice law firms who worked part-time. The women who had the flexibility were solo practitioners or worked for the government. I found it difficult to put together a model of part-time private law practice, because there were no local examples to observe. Although I struggled with the firm culture, I knew that I still wanted a career in private practice. I liked the camaraderie with staff and clients, I liked being able to work with the people in my community. So I started to network, seeking support for my ideas. I hoped to work at a firm, because I appreciated the support that a firm could offer and I liked private practice. I also wanted to work with other attorneys because I saw the value of sharing ideas and legal theories with other attorneys in the office; in addition, I thought that a firm offered clients more options. I shared my dream of part-time work with other attorneys with whom I worked in the community. One of the people I talked to was my friend, Deb Slezak, who was an associate at a small firm, Carpenter & Cioffi, which was located close to my home. Deb suggested that I talk to the partners at her office; she explained that there were a lot of part-time employees at Carpenter & Cioffi. At a luncheon in the spring of 1998, I had the opportunity to speak with Cris Cioffi, and I mentioned that I was interested in a part-time job. Cris explained that at the time, the office of Carpenter & Cioffi didn’t have the physical space for another person. I waited. A year later, Deb told me that the firm had expanded its office space and had the space it needed to add another attorney. I called Cris Cioffi again, and she invited me to the office to meet with her and her partner, Howard Carpenter. By then, I was 8 months pregnant with my second daughter, Zo€e. Cris and Howard asked me what I was looking for in a job, and I said that I was looking to work part-time, 3 days a week. I suggested Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays; my theory was that Friday was a quieter day and people could excuse me for being out then. By the time I got home after the interview, there was a message on my © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


35

phone machine from Howard, and when I called back, I was offered the part-time job—my dream job. When I gave notice that I would not be returning after my (second) maternity leave because I’d been offered employment at Carpenter & Cioffi, the firm asked me to consider staying and also offered me parttime employment. The firm’s proposal was for me to work from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. every day, to be compensated at a reduced rate, and to take an additional pay cut because I wouldn’t be maximizing the office space. In effect, the firm was proposing to rent my office to me during the work hours that I wasn’t there. I thought that was an outrageous offer, and I declined it. In the summer of 1999, after taking nearly 4 months for a maternity leave (a glorious and memorable amount of time!), I started work at Carpenter & Cioffi on a part-time basis. This was a launching point for me, embarking on part-time work as an attorney and finally getting to spend weekday time with my children. There were immediate surprises and rewards in working part-time. I found that I was more productive working on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays instead of for a full week. I am a conscientious employee, and I would never have questioned my productivity while I was working full time; after all, I work in a business in which we keep track of all our hours and everything we do, billable and nonbillable. I used to joke that before I worked at Carpenter & Cioffi, I wrote down my hours when I blew my nose or went to the ladies’ room. So it was a surprise that even though I was working at a firm that was a bit more casual and relaxed, I was billing even more effectively. One of the reasons for my increased effectiveness was that working part-time created more deadlines. Because I am committed to returning phone calls and getting tasks done in a timely manner, the days at home created deadlines on a weekly basis. As a result, if I had a client in on a Monday, I’d work to have an answer by Tuesday, because if I didn’t, the client wouldn’t hear from me until Thursday, which, in my opinion, was too long to wait. By completing tasks before my days off, I ensured that my clients were happy and that it would be less likely that my office would call me at home for emergencies. I’m sure that it also helped that I was better rested, more relaxed, and happier with my life than I’d ever been as a working mother. Because I was a nursing mom, just knowing that I could sleep in on Wednesdays and Fridays was a huge help. I was more focused and better able to concentrate at work. It is impossible to sustain a high level of intensity on a constant basis, and working full-time dilutes this ability. Working parttime, I could stay intensely focused for longer periods, because I had regular day-long breaks from the practice of law. My clients also had the benefit of the rest, because I could use my downtime on days off to mentally work through some of their challenges. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

36


In addition, I was more effective because I was not distracted by home tasks while I was at work. Working full-time, I had no choice but to schedule doctor’s appointments, deal with child-care issues, and generally plan my life during working hours—distractions that were normal and not extreme, but distractions nonetheless. On the part-time schedule, I took care of these matters on my days off, so I received fewer workday interruptions. I remember a friend who had joked that she needed to go to work to ‘‘take care of business,’’ meaning her social life. As a part-time employee, those interruptions occurred infrequently, because I knew that within a couple of days I could take care of those matters at home. Furthermore, I noticed that my attendance at work was nearly perfect working part-time; I almost never missed a day of work as a result of a child’s illness. My husband and I had always divided the ‘‘sick duty,’’ and now that I was home 2 days a week, my husband always picked up the other days if a child was sick. For the mother of two young children, that was a great benefit to my firm. What about my clients? I did not publicize my part-time schedule. I tried to make my part-time work as seamless as possible so that the clients weren’t inconvenienced or delayed because I worked part-time. Many of my clients didn’t realize that I was working part-time because I always returned calls and e-mails promptly. On my days off, the receptionist would send the call to my assistant, who could take a detailed message, give a status report, and answer basic questions. I had the constant support of a great team at work, and I am convinced that my part-time work would not have gone as well without that team. As technology advanced, I was eventually able to check my e-mail from home and work from home when necessary, just as if I were at my desk in the office. There was also a silver lining to the part-time schedule: I found that I gained clients by working part-time. On my days off, I would have lunch or get together for play dates with other moms, some who worked part-time and some who stayed at home, and I found that these moms were becoming my clients and referring clients to me. A few years later, when I attended a seminar on building a law practice, the speakers recommended regular golf outings and entertaining of clients and acquaintances at least 2 afternoons a week to build a practice. It turned out that my part-time schedule facilitated this kind of networking with the moms of my community and ultimately worked to benefit the firm. I can’t say that the part-time schedule was always perfect. There were some home days that I was on the phone for blocks of time, working out the details of a real estate closing or a corporate contract. I’d close myself in my home office and work, letting the kids watch a little too much television or take longer naps. Once, when I was called © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


37

by a judge while my children were yelling for my attention, I walked into the playroom while I was on the phone and silently put down a box of cookies and slowly backed away, as if I were feeding the lions at the zoo. I was able to have a full, 15-minute conversation with no interruptions! Fortunately, that didn’t happen very often, and for the most part I was able to spend time with my children on my days off. As my children grew older and entered school, I picked up more hours at work. By the time both children were in elementary school, I was working 2 full days and 3 half days. In 2004, when my daughters were 8 and 5, I was asked to become a partner at the firm. At the time, Cris Cioffi, Howard Carpenter, and Deb Slezak were partners, and Howard Carpenter was changing his status to become ‘‘of counsel’’ to the firm. Our new firm, Cioffi Slezak Wildgrube P.C., was 100% woman-owned. Remarkably, I was a part-time partner working at approximately 80% of a full-time attorney’s position. Part-time partnership is almost unheard of in the legal community. I was thrilled that I had made my goal of partnership, and it was even sweeter to be able to do so while working part-time. I currently work what the firm considers to be a 90% schedule: full days on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays and until 2 P.M. on Wednesdays and Fridays. I work additional hours in the evenings and occasionally on weekends, but I always get the kids off the bus on Wednesdays and Fridays, and I am grateful to be able to do that. My children look forward to those afternoons; it is a time to catch up with them and work on school projects. That time also allows me to get a head start on household chores and to run errands with the kids. I am lucky to have a lot of support, both at work and at home. The teamwork at the office helps me ensure that my clients will have responsive, high-quality legal services. At home, I have the help of my husband and parents to care for the children. My husband is truly a partner with me in parenting, and he spends lots of time with the children—carpooling, going to their lacrosse practices and games, working with them on their homework, and just spending time with them. I also have the wonderful support of my parents, who live about 5 minutes away from my house and take care of the children after school when I’m working. It helps me to know that my children are spending valuable time with their grandparents when I can’t be there. In addition, my parents are always happy to pick up extra time when I have meetings that just can’t be moved or real estate closings that must take place on a Wednesday or a Friday. As a partner in my law firm, it is my goal to give my staff the same opportunities that I have had at the firm. We have 12 employees, 5 of whom work part-time, and 3 partners, 2 of whom work part-time. Our firm has found that part-time staff work well in our framework; we are © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

38


lucky to have a staff of very talented women who appreciate the concept of teamwork and who work together to provide excellent legal services to our clients. Because we are amenable to part-time schedules, we have been able to hire great people who want to work outside the home but also spend time with their families. It’s not a compromise to hire part-time employees, it’s good business.


Chapter 4

When the Boss Is a Woman Joan Chrisler Sarah K. Clapp

Images of women bosses in popular culture are rarely positive—think of Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, Sigourney Weaver in Working Girl, Helen Mirren in Raising Helen, Demi Moore in Disclosure, and Glenn Close in 101 Dalmatians. The most enduring cinematic and literary images show woman bosses as mean, if not outright evil, harridans who seduce their male employees and belittle their women employees. Women bosses are portrayed as envious of their woman employees’ potential, often stealing their ideas, taking credit for their successes, and trying to block their advancement. A current advice book (Friedman & Yorio, 2006) for women managers purports to show its readers how to be ‘‘a good witch’’ rather than ‘‘a bad bitch.’’ Are witch and bitch the only managerial types available to women? For nearly 30 years, Joan Chrisler has given the students in her psychology of women classes an assignment to survey their friends to find out how many had ever worked for a woman boss, what the experience was like, and how many would like to work for a woman (or work for one again). In the early years, relatively few had worked for women, but in recent years more than half the people the students surveyed have done so; usually the women were small-business owners or mid-level managers in larger companies. Women are somewhat more likely than men to say that they would like to work for a woman in the future. The students are often shocked by the comments that their friends and relatives make about women bosses. For example, many more comments are made about the physical appearance and emotional state of female bosses than of male bosses. The women bosses seem to fit


40


one of two stereotypes: (a) the motherly type, who is warm, nurturing, patient, and wants to befriend her employees, and (b) the ‘‘bitch on wheels,’’ who has a bad attitude and is on a power trip, like the women in the films mentioned above. Women often say that the best thing about working for a woman is that there are no concerns about sexual harassment; men often say that the best thing is that they can ‘‘turn on the charm’’ and manipulate a women boss into ‘‘cutting them some slack’’ on the job. Both men and women prefer the motherly type of boss, although both often comment that she is not an authority figure and doesn’t command the respect of her employees. Over the years a common answer to the question of whether people would like to work for a woman is ‘‘Of course, if she’s competent.’’ However, women bosses must prove their competence to skeptical subordinates, whereas the competence of male bosses is assumed until proven otherwise. In 2002, U.S. businesses employed approximately equal numbers of women (46.5%) and men (53.5%), and women held approximately half (50.5%) of management and specialty positions. Nearly half (46%) of privately held businesses were owned by women, who, in recent years, have been starting their own businesses at a higher rate than men have (Catalyst, 2007). However, when we look at the higher echelons of major societal institutions, we find far fewer women than the numbers above might lead us to expect. Women make up 15.7% of corporate officers and 13.6% of corporate boards of directors, according to Catalyst, but they are only 2.6% of the CEOs of the 500 largest corporations headquartered in the U.S. (‘‘The Fortune 500,’’ 2006). Women constitute only 14% of the U.S. Senate, 15.6% of the U.S. House of Representatives, 24.8% of state governors, and 1 of the 9 Supreme Court justices (Center for the American Woman and Politics, 2006). Women are only 5% of the highest ranked officers in the U.S. military (U.S. Department of Defense, 2006). It is still lonely at the top for women. These statistics are ample evidence that women who aspire to leadership positions must negotiate many barriers, and there is a considerable amount of research that describes how qualified women are blocked on their way to the top of their fields. However, it is important to look beyond this harsh reality to explore what happens to women who do make it off the sticky floor and through the glass ceiling to occupy positions of authority. In this chapter we focus on how women leaders are perceived by their subordinates and what can be done to increase the effectiveness of women leaders in uncongenial contexts. PERCEPTIONS OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP Early psychosocial research on leadership is based on what has become known as the ‘‘great man’’ theory, because researchers focused © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

When the Boss Is a Woman

41

on trying to understand how the personal characteristics of individual great leaders (all of whom were men, of course) contributed to their success (Chrisler, Herr, & Murstein, 1998). It was believed that leaders were born, not made; thus only those ‘‘great’’ people who possessed the required characteristics from youth would emerge as leaders (Northouse, 1997). An implicit assumption underlying this theory is that women cannot possibly be ‘‘great men’’ and thus are not ‘‘natural’’ leaders. Leadership has traditionally been portrayed as a masculine endeavor, and organizational positions that are high in power and prestige are considered to be especially masculine (Carli & Eagly, 2001; Heilman, Rivero, & Brett, 1991). A line of research (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Powell & Butterfield, 1979, 1989; Schein, 1973, 1975; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996; Willemsen, 2002) known as the ‘‘think manager, think-male’’ studies has consistently shown that people in North America, western Europe, and east Asia believe that the characteristics of successful managers more closely resemble those of typical men than those of typical women, although recent data from the United States (Schein, 2001) and Germany (Sczesny, 2003) show this pattern to be shifting, especially among women. Traditional views of leadership exclude women as both incapable of effective leadership and undesirable in leadership positions. Despite these persistent stereotypes of the masculine nature of leadership, the characteristics recognized as relevant to successful leadership include a mixture: some stereotypically associated with men (e.g., self-confidence, determination) and some stereotypically associated with women (e.g., integrity, sociability) (Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Chrisler et al., 1998). Leadership, by definition, takes place in a group; therefore, the situation in which the group finds itself and the patterns of interactions among the group members affect both who is perceived as a leader and how that leader is evaluated by the followers (Chrisler et al., 1998). It is now widely recognized that followers’ expectations and perceptions affect the process of leadership, and so do many situational elements (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). For example, one study (Cann & Siegfried, 1990) showed that stereotypical feminine characteristics are more highly valued in leaders by their subordinates, whereas stereotypical masculine characteristics are more highly valued in leaders by their superiors. The quality of the leader–follower relationship, which greatly influences leadership success, has been shown to depend on such factors as the perceived competence of the leader, the leader’s motivation, the leader’s personality characteristics, and the personality attributes of the leader’s followers (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). Stereotypical masculine (e.g., agentic) and stereotypical feminine (e.g., communal) traits and behaviors are valued in different situations and by different individuals. Effective leadership behavior has been © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

42


shown to include both agentic and communal traits and behaviors, which indicates that, despite the stereotypes, effective leadership is actually androgynous. Thus, traditional conceptions of masculine leadership ignore important dimensions that are used by successful leaders. ROLE INCONGRUITY Gender-role stereotypes are so well known that they are easily and automatically activated (Eagly, 2003). Therefore, if a woman occupies a position that requires characteristics that women as a group are not expected to have, she will typically receive a lower performance evaluation than her male counterparts. When people encounter particular women in positions that are not believed to be congruent with the abilities and characteristics of women in general, they tend to devalue the women’s work, attribute the women’s success to external factors rather than to their competence, or dislike and reject the women when their success cannot be attributed to external factors (Carli & Eagly, 2001). Service-oriented, communal traits are valued in women and are a central part of women’s prescriptive norms. Traits that are valued in men and considered de rigueur for successful leaders (e.g., assertiveness, toughness, ambition) conflict with women’s prescriptive behaviors (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). When women take on leadership roles, especially roles that require more agentic or ‘‘masculine’’ characteristics, observers are forced to evaluate those women in their conflicting roles as women and as leaders. That is, people have to work harder when they think about their woman bosses because they have to consider divergent sets of characteristics (those of women and those of managers), whereas when people think about their male bosses, only one set of characteristics comes into play because of the redundant expectations (i.e., think manager, think male) (Eagly & Karau, 2002). When people are in the minority of a group (e.g., the only woman manager, the only Black manager), more attention is focused on the aspects that cause them to stand out, and when token status is combined with other feminine personal qualities or characteristics (e.g., pregnancy, a short skirt, a low-cut blouse), it can be especially disadvantageous to women leaders because it reminds observers of the role conflict between gender and position. The more these roles seem to be in conflict, the greater the prejudice a woman leader will face. Society’s overall approval of agentic qualities in men and communal qualities in women leads to a general approval of men and disapproval of women in high-level leadership positions. Despite decades of behavioral science research that shows that women and men are more alike than different (Hyde, 2005), most people believe that men and women should differ (Eagly & Karau, 2002). This belief can lead to social © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


43

penalties for women and men who behave in ways that are distinctly counter to gender normative patterns, such as women who are not skilled at comforting a friend in distress (Holmstrom, Burleson, & Jones, 2005). Competent women are often depicted as cold and undesirable group members, and successful woman managers have been described as having much worse personalities (e.g., bitter, quarrelsome, selfish, deceitful, devious) than successful male managers. Thus, women who achieve career success are often seen not as neutral parties but as hostile and counter-communal individuals (Heilman et al., 2004)—much like the characters in the films mentioned above. When women are not in violation of their gender role, there is a tendency for people to react more favorably to women than to men and to report that they like women better than men (Carli, 1999; Heilman et al., 2004). When women occupy leadership roles that are considered feminine—that are believed to require interpersonal skills, such as the ability to get along well with others—they are often judged as more effective than men in the same roles (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). This suggests that male bosses may also be subjected to gender prejudice when they hold leadership positions that are judged to require stereotypically feminine traits. Gender Differences in Perceptions of Women Leaders Management research has shown that employees are often reluctant to have a woman supervisor (Lyness & Thompson, 1997); however, results are mixed about whether men and women are equally reluctant. Heilman et al. (2004) showed that women and men are equally biased in their ratings of woman managers, and the ‘‘think manager, think male’’ studies cited earlier have shown that people in North America, Europe, and Asia agree that men are perceived to be more qualified as managers than women are, although men report this perception more strongly than women do. Male subordinates have been found to react more negatively than woman subordinates to woman leaders, and men tend to favor competent men over equally competent women, whereas women respond similarly to equally competent candidates (Carli, 1999). Part of the reason for this discrepancy could be that men are less likely than women to have had a woman boss, and therefore they could be less likely than women to see leadership as an androgynous role (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Another potential reason for men’s greater prejudice against female leaders lies in the threat that female leaders present to men’s status and to their views of their own masculinity. One study (Sinclair & Kunda, 2000) showed that when a female superior gives a male subordinate a negative evaluation, he is likely to see her as less competent than a similarly critical male superior. Ratings of female managers and professors plummeted when their subordinates received a poor performance review; © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

44


however, the subordinates did not display gender-role stereotypes or bias when the performance review was favorable. A negative evaluation by a female boss emphasizes the superior position and power she holds over her male subordinates, who then prefer to consider her incompetent rather than to take responsibility for their own poor performance. Men often devalue a female leader’s competence by attributing her achievements to luck or effort (Lyness & Thompson, 1997) and by defaulting to stereotypes of incompetence in ambiguous situations in which cognitive distortion can easily occur (Heilman et al., 2004). Carli (1999) showed that participants in a group setting expressed more overt hostility toward a woman who disagreed with the group than they did toward a man who disagreed. Carli’s work has shown that male college students explicitly report feeling threatened by articulate, task-oriented women. Whereas men respond more favorably to other men who are competent, confident, and self-promoting than they do to those who are not. Women who display similar behavior patterns are not liked as well as humble women. This experience suggests that women might have to choose between being perceived as nice or as competent, which could explain the two types of female bosses that Joan Chrisler’s students routinely describe. Although the evidence for women’s bias against female managers is mixed, there is some data to suggest that female managers discriminate against their female subordinates in the same ways that male managers do. For example, one survey (Rosener, 1990) indicates that both male and woman bosses pay their woman employees roughly $12,000 less than their male employees with similar positions and titles. Thus, it seems that even though successful women have personally experienced career barriers to advancement due to their gender, they continue to hold stereotypical views of women in general and might see themselves (and certain others) as simply exceptions to the rule. On the other hand, gender-role stereotypes are so pervasive throughout society that even women who recognize that they have suffered from those stereotypes themselves have difficulty escaping their influence when they make judgments about their subordinates. POWER AND INFLUENCE DYNAMICS The dynamics of power within an organization play a large role in determining what types of leadership approaches will be most effective for women and for men. Organizational power can be described as power over (i.e., the ability to dominate subordinates), power to (i.e., the empowerment of self and others), and power from (i.e., the ability to resist the demands of others) (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). Although high status implies all three types of power, the dynamics of organizations can limit the way that women use the six classic © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


45

power bases defined by French and Raven (1959): (a) reward (the ability to provide positive outcomes), (b) coercion (the ability to provide negative outcomes), (c) expertise (the possession of special knowledge or skills that others do not have), (d) information (the ability to persuade by argument, such as giving good reasons for the requested action), (e) referent (the ability to persuade by virtue of a personal relationship, e.g., ‘‘do it for me,’’ ‘‘we’re a team’’), and (f) legitimate (the ‘‘right’’ to influence by virtue of one’s position in a hierarchy). For example, the ‘‘motherly type’’ so often described by Chrisler’s students exerts her power through the reference, reward, and information power bases. However, her expertise and legitimacy are often questioned by her employees, who are also unlikely to believe her if she threatens them with coercion. Because the typical male boss has easier access to more of these power bases than the typical woman boss does, he is more likely to exercise power directly, whereas she is more likely to exercise it indirectly (Carli, 1999). Power exercised indirectly is often effective in the short term, but if subordinates do not realize that they have been influenced by their superior, they do not tend to see their superior as an effective leader. Follower Influences on Power Differences between female and male leaders’ social influence and choice of power strategies are influenced by the gender composition of the group; by the leader’s competence, dominance, and communality; and by the nature of the task (Carli, 2001). For example, Carli (1989) showed that men tend to disagree more when they interact with other men, whereas women tend to disagree more when they interact with other women. This suggests that both men and women have a tendency to match the behavioral expectations of those around them, which results in less stereotypical behavior in pairs of women and in pairs of men than in mixed pairs. Butler and Geis (1990) used a one-way mirror to observe participants in a discussion group with trained confederates. Male and female confederates who were assigned to play assertive roles were equally likely to be perceived by the other group participants as leaders. However, the researchers noticed that the participants smiled and nodded more often in response to male leaders than to female leaders, and the participants frowned more often when female leaders rather than male leaders were speaking. These subtle but certain differences in approval can enhance or reduce a leader’s confidence. Men’s Greater Flexibility in Influence Strategies College men report the use of a wider range of influence strategies, especially direct strategies, than college women do (Gruber & White, © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

46


1986), and men tend to have more latitude than women do to lead in a variety of masculine and feminine styles without experiencing negative consequences in their evaluations by others (Pratch & Jacobowitz, 1996). For example, as noted above, women can find it more difficult to exert influence through legitimate or expert means, especially early in their careers. As they gain legitimate and expert power, they tend to lose referent power, which can factor into the perception of women bosses as either competent or nice. Different situations require the use of different influence strategies. Although men have access to more power bases than women do— especially to legitimacy, expertise, and coercion—it should not be assumed that men will rely more heavily on those methods of influence. Research has shown that dominance and coercion are less likely to motivate subordinates than other more benevolent forms of power are, unless the subordinates believe that they have something important to gain; people generally dislike domineering individuals and resist them whenever possible (Carli, 1999). Both women and men tend to avoid direct disagreement and negative or aggressive influence strategies. Although men do use these strategies more than women do, most men prefer not to rely on them too often (Carli, 1999). Although men often might prefer to use referent power, the fact that they have access to all the power bases allows them greater flexibility to function as leaders in any situation. This advantage results in a greater variety of positive outcomes for men than for women, including greater upward influence (Hollander & Offermann, 1990) and more credit for leadership success, even when subordinates are disadvantaged by particular actions. Power Versus Gender in Mediating Influence There is evidence that gender differences in influence strategies are determined by gender differences in power rather than by gender differences in personality. Both women and men tend to use more direct, assertive forms of influence when they feel more powerful (Carli, 1999). Ragins (1991) found that subordinates’ ratings of a leader’s power accounted for a greater proportion of the variance than the gender of the leaders did. This is an important result, because it suggests that simple interventions could lead to better evaluations of women bosses. Hogue, Yoder, and Ludwig (2002) showed that (at least in the laboratory) ratings of the performance of women leaders are higher when a reason that she is the leader is provided; explanations stressed the leader’s expertise and conferred legitimacy on her. In this way the researchers expanded the power bases that were available and provided the possibility of greater flexibility in leadership strategies. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


47

HOW WOMEN BOSSES MEASURE UP The substantial amount of research that has been conducted on differences between female and male leaders shows more similarities than differences between them (Eagly, 2007; Hyde, 2005). An important meta-analysis by Eagly and colleagues (1995) showed that women and men do not differ overall in leadership effectiveness, except perhaps in circumstances in which the leadership is male-dominated and the subordinates are all men. Some recent data (Pratch & Jacobowitz, 1996; Sharpe, 2000) suggest that women make more effective leaders than men do, and this might reflect a cultural shift in how people think about leadership. Management texts and the popular press have begun to define good leaders as more like coaches or teachers than authoritarian bosses who issue orders to their subordinates, and this new image is more compatible with the feminine gender role than the traditional image is. Nevertheless, social science research and opinion polls still show that people prefer male bosses (Eagly, 2007). A trend in leadership research is the relationship between gender and level of leadership. Men are seen as more effective in the higher echelon (i.e., first-level positions), whereas women are seen as more effective in middle management. One reason for women’s increased effectiveness in middle-management positions might be that these positions are thought to require especially good human relations; middle managers must deal effectively with both subordinates and superiors, and they need coaching and teaching skills in order to motivate and develop their subordinates. Research and popular culture suggest that women, on the average, are socially skilled, and therefore they would have an advantage in middle management (Eagly et al., 1995). These beliefs fit well with the motherly type of boss described by Chrisler’s students; the bitchy harridans portrayed in films inhabit the upper echelon of their respective hierarchies.

Ambition Ambition is a central aspect of the American dream, as codified in Horatio Alger’s popular series of 19th-century novels. In fact, his heroes (e.g., Ragged Dick, Tattered Tom, Paul the Peddler) had little to sustain them, yet their drive to succeed eventually made them both rich and successful. Generations of American boys were encouraged to emulate Alger’s characters, and to describe a man as ambitious is considered a compliment. However, the word ambitious applied to women is at best ambivalent. The word is often said in an acid tone that clearly suggests disapproval of a woman who has overreached. Today’s girls, unlike those of the 19th century, are encouraged to develop their talents and to set goals for themselves. They have no © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

48


difficulty competing with other girls in the classroom or on the playing field, and more women than men are currently enrolled in American colleges and graduate schools to prepare for future careers. Yet to achieve success in the highest echelon requires a single-minded pursuit of one’s goals, or at least the willingness to give a high priority to the pursuit of one’s goals, and this does not comport with the traditional feminine gender role, which requires a woman to support others and to place others’ needs before her own. Approval of women who pursue their own goals comes ‘‘only if they have first satisfied the needs of all of their family members.’’ This social requirement can lead women to scale back their careers or to leave the workforce when their children are young, only to show their true ambition later in life. Women who do not have families or who appear to others to neglect their families often find that their ‘‘ambitions as well as their femininity will be called into question’’ (Fels, 2004, p. 58). In order to reach one’s goals, it is necessary on occasion to ‘‘toot one’s own horn’’ to let others know of one’s talents and achievements. It is much easier for men than for women to do this, for boasting is a masculine activity that is considered impolite when women do it. Yet if women do not bring their accomplishments to their superiors’ attention, their work will be overlooked when it is time to award raises or promotions. The ‘‘feminine modesty effect’’ (Berg, Stephan, & Dodson, 1981; Gould & Slone, 1982) is a form of causal attribution that some women use to explain their successes and failures. Two researchers (Crittenden & Wiley, 1980, 1985; Wiley & Crittenden, 1992) have demonstrated this effect and people’s reactions to it in several studies of faculty attribution patterns concerning their productivity. Their results clearly indicate that modest accounts of publication success (e.g., ‘‘I was lucky that my manuscript was sent to helpful reviewers’’) enhanced femininity but decreased professionalism in the eyes of colleagues. Similarly, self-serving accounts of publication failure (e.g., ‘‘My manuscript was sent to incompetent reviewers’’) decreased femininity but enhanced professionalism in the eyes of colleagues. Therefore, women, but not men, must choose between their gender and their professional role when talking about their work to colleagues. Once again, we can see this as a decision that determines whether women are viewed as competent or as nice, and, whichever presentation style women choose, they risk rejection by some of their colleagues. Furthermore, the women who showed the ‘‘modesty effect’’ in discussing their failures (i.e., blamed themselves rather than the reviewers or editor) were less likely to make attempts to publish their work elsewhere (Crittenden & Wiley, 1980). Thus, they preserved their modesty, or humility, but decreased their motivation, self-confidence, and chances for career success. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


49

Because women receive less support than men do in pursuing their goals, women are more likely than men to question whether their goals are rewarding enough to be worth the effort that is necessary to achieve them. The personal and social recognition that ambitious women receive for their accomplishments is quantitatively poorer, qualitatively more ambivalent, and less predictable than the recognition that ambitious men receive (Fels, 2004). Social sanctions and animosity, in addition to lack of reinforcement, can cause women to abandon their ambitions. This dynamic can limit some women to positions in middle management, where they work to maintain the status quo rather than developing new ideas and innovative directions for an organization. It can lead other women to drop out of unrewarding organizations and start their own businesses. Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership Men are more likely than women to describe themselves as exhibiting behaviors that characterize transactional leadership, the belief that job performance is a series of transactions with subordinates in which rewards are exchanged for good performance and punishments for poor performance. Research on transactional leadership suggests that offering rewards (e.g., pay increases, bonuses) motivates people to earn the reward but not to perform well over time (Herzberg, 2003). Women are more likely than men to describe themselves as enacting transformational leadership (Eagly & Johannsen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly, Johannsen-Schmidt, & van Eagen, 2003; Pratch & Jacobowitz, 1996), the belief that a leader should encourage subordinates’ good performance by encouraging them to transform their own self-interest by ‘‘buying into’’ the group’s goal. Transformational leadership includes such components as vision, role modeling, intellectual stimulation, meaningmaking, appeals to higher order needs, empowerment, the setting of high expectations, and the fostering of collective identity (Yoder, 2001). When women do use their organizational power in a transactional way, they often do so in order to help their subordinates. Research (Eagly et al., 2003) has shown that women are more likely than men to deliver rewards to subordinates for good performance, which is a predictor of effective leadership. Transformational leadership can be equally effective for women and men in the right contexts; it is most appropriate during the birth, growth, or revitalization of an organization (Yoder, 2001). Although men have reported using transformational leadership somewhat less often than women have, a recent meta-analysis (Eagly et al., 2003) has shown this difference overall to be small, and it is possible that the participants in these studies over-reported leadership behaviors that align with prescriptive gender behaviors. For example, Eagly and © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

50


colleagues (1995) found that both women and men tend to emphasize task accomplishment when they occupy a gender-congruent leadership role in which most of their subordinates are of the same gender. The small gender difference in transactional versus transformational leadership style might be due to the fact that male bosses are more often found in gender-congruent positions, and female bosses are more often found in gender-incongruent positions, because most leadership positions are still considered to be masculine roles. Participative Leadership In follow-up interviews with respondents in a survey of leaders that was conducted by the Independent Women’s Forum, Rosener (1990) asked women who had characterized themselves as transformational leaders how they thought their style differed from traditional masculine conceptions of leadership. Rosener labeled these women’s style ‘‘interactive’’ or ‘‘participative’’ leadership, in which the women encourage participation in decision making, share power and information, and enhance others’ self-worth. Rosener’s respondents generally agreed that people perform best when they feel good about themselves and their work, and her respondents said that they try to create an environment conducive to this dynamic. Research has shown that a supportive social environment, increased responsibility and participation, and the perception that one’s work is valued all increase workers’ motivation (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). Successful leadership depends in part on reciprocity and the potential for two-way influence and power sharing (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). The women interviewed by Rosener (1990) reported that they try to make their subordinates feel involved with the organization by allowing them to have a say in nearly all aspects of their work and by providing them with the information that is necessary to understand and participate fully in the goals of the organization. Such participation increases support for managerial decisions and increases employees’ motivation. When employees believe that the boss trusts them and wants their input, it increases loyalty and information flow in both directions. Subordinates readily communicate new ideas, and they let the boss know when there are problems. Furthermore, the delegation of some decision making to subordinates is associated with better employee performance (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). Although participative leadership has clear advantages, there are also potential disadvantages. The women interviewed by Rosener (1990) acknowledged that their efforts to include everyone in decision making could be seen as merely symbolic if the boss decides not to take the employees’ advice. It takes time to solicit input from employees, and giving up some power and control by delegating responsibility can leave © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


51

a leader vulnerable to gender-stereotyped criticism. Subordinates might view a female boss as less competent (e.g., as lacking her own ideas) if she regularly seeks input from others. Because information is a source of power and status, female bosses who openly communicate with subordinates can be seen as na€ıve or as constantly seeking approval from others. Finally, the enthusiasm that is characteristic of these female leaders can sometimes be misinterpreted by employees as ‘‘cheerleading,’’ which can undermine their credibility. Successful leaders must be able to use a variety of leadership behaviors, depending on the requirements of the situation (Goleman, 2004); however, there are a number of reasons that women particularly like the participative style. Women have traditionally been denied legitimate power, and thus many female bosses learned early in their careers to lead without formal authority. Even when they do possess organizational power, such as in middle-management positions, women must try to influence their male superiors as well as their male subordinates; thus they might refrain from asserting their own superiority or ‘‘pulling rank.’’ Male CEOs have said that they like to hire woman managers in part because they are ‘‘less turf-conscious’’ than men are and ‘‘seek less personal glory’’ than men do (Sharpe, 2000). Women have been socialized from an early age to be cooperative, sensitive, supportive, and vulnerable, whereas men have been socialized to be competitive, strong, decisive, and in control (Rosener, 1990). Thus, the qualities of participative leadership correspond more closely with the feminine than with the masculine gender role, and this increases the likelihood that women will be participative leaders. Female-Friendly Organizations Although women might have an advantage in participative leadership, Rosener (1990) pointed out that this style works well only in organizations that are willing to accept it. Only one of the women she interviewed worked in an established, major corporation; all the others worked in medium-size, fast-growing, and fast-changing companies. Such companies tend to employ large percentages of educated professionals who want to be involved and challenged and who might have specialized knowledge that their bosses do not share. This type of organizational environment requires collaboration between superiors and subordinates so that the company can utilize the full potential of all the workers. Fast-changing companies emphasize performance above all else, and they require flexible and innovative leaders. Being part of an ‘‘old boys’’’ network is often irrelevant in those workplaces. Women who want to be participative leaders will find it more difficult to deviate from traditional leadership styles when they work in hierarchical, traditionally masculine organizations, such as investment © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

52


banking or the military. Participative behaviors such as information sharing could be detrimental to female leaders in such organizations. Furthermore, any leadership style that is unconventional will probably be rejected, especially if it is associated with women and thus can be derided as too feminine. The meta-analysis by Eagly and colleagues (1995) showed a weak tendency for several types of organizations (e.g., education, government, social sciences) to be places where female leaders are judged more effective than male leaders. The characteristics of organizations that tend to be more favorable to women include flexibility for on-the-job training, closer leader-follower interactions, and smaller work teams, which allow for the development of deeper, more trusting relationships among employees (Yoder, 2001). Shifting Organizational Environments and Conceptions of Leadership The tendency to define leadership and management in masculine terms has begun to weaken (Eagly, 2007), and many organizations are now promoting styles of management that are less autocratic and more participative (Eagly et al., 1995); such changes should be more favorable to female bosses. In the past few decades, globalization has been shifting the nature of the western nations’ economies and, consequently, the nature of various organizations. Only about 20% of the workforce in the developed nations is involved in industrial pursuits (i.e., manufacturing and transporting things); the chief economic activity now is knowledge and service work (Drucker, 1991). As the workforce becomes better educated, managers will be dealing with employees who have specialized knowledge and skills and who insist on utilizing their potential. Thus, contemporary businesses must deal with the challenge of globalization and the need to empower their employees in a less stable and secure environment (Yoder, 2001); this increases their need for flexible, transformational, and participative managers. The shift away from traditional conceptions of leadership requires the willingness of leaders to empower their followers and to pay closer attention to group effort and team spirit (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). Because of the pervasive belief, in traditional masculine organizations, that empowering others means losing power oneself, men might have a more difficult time than women in shifting to this new focus. Women, many of whom have learned to lead without formal authority, could more easily adjust to these organizational trends, and some woman leaders might even be more comfortable operating this way. The shift to follower-focused leadership requires emotional intelligence, which includes an awareness of one’s own and others’ emotional states, emotional self-regulation, empathy, and social skills. One © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


53

study (Goleman, 2004) showed that 90% of the difference between star performers and average performers in senior management positions could be attributed to emotional intelligence rather than to cognitive abilities. Men in the United States are socialized to view most emotions as unacceptable and unmasculine (Kilmartin, 2007). Therefore, many men are not good at understanding their own emotions (let alone those of others), which makes critical components of emotional intelligence (e.g., self-awareness, empathy) difficult for them. Women, on the other hand, have been socialized to pay close attention to emotions, both their own and others’, which gives them more opportunities to develop and practice the components of emotional intelligence. PROBLEMS UNIQUE TO FEMALE LEADERS A number of career problems are unique to female leaders. For example, women often lack mentors, and they tend to be excluded from informal communication networks such as ‘‘old boys’ clubs’’ (Chrisler, 1998; Sharpe, 2000). Women at the highest executive levels report a less comfortable ‘‘cultural fit’’ and less organizational support than do men and lower-status women, and they are less satisfied than others are with their income and future advancement prospects. When matched with men in the same position, female managers have been found to have less authority (e.g., to supervise fewer subordinates) and fewer career-broadening opportunities (e.g., overseas assignments) (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Despite the well-established ‘‘personalgroup discrimination discrepancy’’ (Crosby, 1984; Taylor, Ruggiero, & Louis, 1996)—in which women acknowledge gender discrimination in general but deny that they themselves have been affected by it—female executives often report that their career development has resulted more from overcoming obstacles (e.g., lack of organizational support) than from succeeding at challenging opportunities (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Three other problems that provide unique challenges for women are balancing work and family, tokenism and preferential selection, and sexual harassment. Balancing Work and Family Men who dedicate themselves to high-powered careers often have a spouse who takes care of the children, manages the household, and entertains business associates. A woman rarely has a spouse who has the time and/or willingness to do these things for her; consequently, she has more roles to balance as her career advances. In a study of managers who worked long hours, Brett and Stroh (2003) found that all the managers juggled a variety of roles and reported that their spouses facilitated their ability to do so. Most of the male managers © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

54


had wives who were not employed outside the home; the smaller number of female managers had both paid (female) help and husbands who took substantial responsibility for child care. Women who lack the financial and social resources of Brett and Stroh’s participants are unlikely to reach high management levels, and most woman managers cope with greater amounts of stress and role conflict than men, as well as with the sometimes hostile disapproval of coworkers who think that the women are letting their families down. Female executives are less likely than male managers to be married and to have children (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Although seniorlevel men and women both stressed the need to work long hours and to put work ahead of family in order to succeed in certain careers, women, but not men, often believe that they must sacrifice family life altogether if they want to pursue careers that have been structured for men with stay-at-home wives (Fels, 2004). Woman managers who do have children report doing significantly more hours of child care and housework than their male peers do; however, these women and men still devote a similar number of hours to their careers (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). These women must take care not to let the stresses of the work–family juggling act show on the job; any tense exchanges or episodes of shortness of temper could cause their subordinates to move them from the ‘‘motherly type’’ to the ‘‘bitch on wheels’’ boss category. Social psychology research has shown that the terms feminist and career woman are ‘‘synonymous with derogatory stereotypes of women who are not nice and not feminine enough’’ (Goodwin & Fiske, 2001, p. 361). Tokenism and Preferential Selection Tokenism refers to the effects of only a small proportion (at most 15%) of some category of people (e.g., women, African Americans) within an organization or job category. When women make up such a small proportion of an organization (e.g., the military) or a job category (e.g., senior management), gender-role stereotypes become more salient to other members of the organization, and women encounter more obstacles, such as exclusion from information networks, lack of recognition for their achievements (Lyness & Thompson, 1997), heightened visibility and resultant performance pressures (Yoder, 2001), and social isolation (Biernat, Crandall, Young, Kobrynowicz, & Halpin, 1998; Yoder, 2001). In addition, when women constitute a token percentage of a group, men tend to exaggerate the women’s differences from themselves by engaging in actions and conversations (e.g., telling sexual or sexist jokes) that emphasize those differences and exclude women in ways that do not occur when the number of women in the group is larger © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


55

(Lyness & Thompson, 1997). One study (Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, 1991) showed that women’s performance was rated lower than men’s when women made up less than 20% of a group, whereas women’s performance was rated higher than men’s when the percentage of women was above 50%. Thus, negative stereotypes of women seem to decrease as the percentage of women in a group or a job category increases. Tokenism can have negative effects on the way that the tokens perceive themselves as well as on the ways that they are perceived by others. The increased attention to and salience of tokens tends to result in an increased self-focus on the part of the token, which leads to anxiety and to unrealistic self-expectations of perfect behavior on the job (Biernat et al., 1998). Token women are particularly vulnerable to the perception that they were preferentially selected for their positions on the basis of their gender, which can cause subordinates to doubt a woman’s competence and to treat her disrespectfully. Rumors about reasons other than merit for a woman’s hiring or promotion can lead the woman herself to doubt her competence, devalue her own accomplishments and capabilities, shake her confidence, and lower her motivation to succeed in her leadership role (Heilman et al., 1991). Unlike women’s competence, which is often in doubt until proven, a man’s competence is usually assumed until disproved, even in cases in which reasons other than merit are believed to account for his hiring (e.g., he’s the CEO’s son-inlaw). When people are unsure of their abilities, they tend to choose assignments that are easily within their reach (Bandura, 1977); thus, women managers whose self-confidence has been shaken by fear of preferential selection might play it safe and not seek out challenging opportunities in which they can show the true extent of their abilities (Heilman et al., 1991). Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment is generally defined in two categories: quid pro quo harassment, in which sexual conduct is required to receive or to keep a job, a promotion, or job-related benefits; and hostile environment harassment, in which unwelcome sexual conduct interferes with an individual’s job performance and creates a hostile, offensive work environment. Most researchers have focused on women as the victims of sexual harassment and have assumed that such harassment can occur only if the offender has formal power over or higher status than the victim (McKinney, 1992). The very definition of quid pro quo harassment is based on a superior harassing a subordinate, for subordinates generally do not possess the organizational power to make sexual conduct a condition of a superior’s employment. However, anyone can create a hostile environment, and people in positions of © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

56


authority can be subjected to harassment by those with less organizational power (Grauerholz, 1989). This has been labeled contrapower harassment (DeSouza & Fansler, 2003: McKinney, 1992), and it can be a serious problem for woman leaders. Contrapower sexual harassment has been studied primarily in university settings, where the victims are faculty and the perpetrators are students. For example, one study (Grauerholz, 1989) showed that nearly half (47.6%) of the female faculty that was surveyed reported that they had experienced at least one of the sexually harassing behaviors on the list, and more than half (59.1%) of those reported that they had experienced two or more of the behaviors. DeSouza and Fansler (2003) showed that more than half of the faculty members that they surveyed had experienced sexually harassing behavior from students within the past 2 years. These surveys typically inquire about the following behaviors: sexist verbal comments, sexual comments written on course evaluations, obscene phone calls believed to be from students, physical advances, uninvited sexual looks or other body language, sexual bribery, and sexual assault. The most commonly reported contrapower harassment consisted of verbal and written sexist and sexual comments and inappropriate body language (Grauerholz, 1989; McKinney, 1992). In most societies, men as a group are ascribed more social status and power than women are, and it is the abuse of power on the basis of one’s status as a man that forms the basis of contrapower sexual harassment between subordinate men and their female superiors (Grauerholz, 1989). Contrapower harassment is often an attempt on the part of a male subordinate to reassert the dominance he expects to have based on his status as a male. Women who hold positions of authority in traditionally male-dominated workplaces can be especially vulnerable (DeSouza & Fansler, 2003), for they represent a threat to men who support traditional gender roles. Harassment of women managers, faculty, military officers, and other women of high status is an attempt to undermine their authority and to remind them that they are ‘‘merely’’ women and, hence, gender objects. Sometimes subordinates direct hostility toward female leaders in anonymous ways, such as comments on evaluations or defacement of her property, to avoid the consequences of harassing a superior. Research shows that victims of contrapower harassment, like those of other forms of sexual harassment, are hesitant to report the harassment because they fear repercussions, such as rumors, poor performance evaluations, loss of respect, and even physical assault. Studies (Clapp, 2007; Grauerholz, 1989) have shown that woman faculty and military officers most often report ‘‘doing nothing’’ or trying to take care of the problem themselves (e.g., by avoiding or confronting the perpetrator) because they feared the repercussions if the harassment became known to others. Some women choose to cope with the © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


57

harassment by defining it as ignorance, stupidity, or awkwardness on the part of the harasser (Grauerholz, 1989). Thus, contrapower harassment is rarely reported to formal authorities (McKinney, 1992), and women at the top of organizations might not even have anyone to whom to report it. Although both women and men can be victims of contrapower harassment, women are more likely than men to describe the experience as threatening, inappropriate, and distressing (DeSouza & Fansler, 2003). A male subordinate’s harassment of a female superior can realistically be perceived by her as a threat (both physically and psychologically), but a female subordinate’s harassment of a male superior is unlikely to be viewed by him as any type of threat. A typical female subordinate has no power base from which to work, either through gender status or legitimate position, and thus male superiors have no reason to feel threatened by her. Furthermore, men have been socialized to believe that they should always want, need, and be ready for sexual opportunities (Kilmartin, 2007), and they have been told that they should view sexual advances from women as confirmation of their masculinity. Thus, they often respond to suggestive behavior from female subordinates with bemusement or a mixture of pride and embarrassment; they are unlikely to see it as reducing their authority in any way. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO EMPOWER WOMAN BOSSES The strategies that women and men use to lead effectively depend on the situational context in which they will be leading and are influenced by group composition, the nature of the task, whether task performance is valued above all else, the availability of resources, leader–follower relations, and available power bases (Hollander & Offermann, 1990; Yoder, 2001). Women might find themselves in either favorable or unfavorable contexts, and what they must do to maximize their effectiveness depends on whether the situation is stereotypically masculine (i.e., unfavorable for women) or one that approves of transformational leadership (i.e., favorable for women). Yoder suggested three categories of interventions that can be used effectively for women to minimize the negative impact of masculine leadership contexts: things that women can do, things that organizations can do, and ways in which the context itself can be changed. What Woman Bosses Themselves Can Do Stereotypically masculine settings are generally male-dominated, task-oriented, and emphasize hierarchy and ‘‘power over’’ more than egalitarianism and ‘‘power to.’’ In such settings women must attempt © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

58


to enhance their own status and to minimize status differentials (Yoder, 2001). Women bosses can enhance their status by the successful completion of tasks, by rewarding (with compliments, challenges, and bonuses) employees who perform well, and by showing that they have the confidence of their own bosses or boards of directors. Women bosses can minimize status differentials by treating their subordinates with respect, by talking and listening regularly to their subordinates, by avoiding dominant speech acts (e.g., commands), and by displaying a sense of humor (Troemel-Ploetz, 1994; Yoder, 2001). New group members can build credit for leadership by initially conforming to group procedures (e.g., ‘‘the way we do things’’), which shows loyalty to and trust in the group (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). If a woman boss is hired from outside the company or department she is going to manage, she should initially conform to the group’s expectations and values, and she should not try to change too much too soon. Initial conformity can form a basis for the use of referent power and provide her with more ‘‘credit’’ that can be used later to introduce new ideas and exhibit nonconformist behavior. Women who are extraordinarily competent compared to other members of the group are more influential than women who are less or equally as competent as other group members (and especially other male leaders). Research (Brett & Stroh, 2003; Carli, 1999) has shown that women are held to a higher standard of performance than men are, and they must outperform men to be considered equal (as the saying goes, like Ginger Rogers, who did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels). These women stars will be respected but might not be liked. Both extraordinary and ordinary women can increase their influence and their acceptance by the group if they also display personal warmth (Carli, 1999), such as by smiling, complimenting others, sharing credit for success, and remembering details about their subordinates’ personal lives. Although men who are agentic are often rated higher than women who do so, women who exhibit both agentic and communal traits are considered as hirable as their male counterparts (Carli & Eagly, 2001). This is an important point: Women bosses can ‘‘get away with’’ behaving in the stereotypically masculine manner that is expected in many organizational contexts as long as they temper that behavior with an obvious dose of warmth and communality. What Organizations Can Do Women bosses in stereotypically masculine organizations will be more effective if they receive organizational support. This support should be demonstrated from the start. A woman leader should be introduced by her superiors (or hiring committee) in terms that make it © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


59

clear that the organization values the woman’s experience and expertise and has confidence in her abilities (Hogue et al., 2002). The announcement of a new leader’s hiring or promotion should contain a summary of that person’s credentials and accomplishments, so that a woman in that position will not have to run the risk of being denigrated for bragging if she shares that information herself. Future accomplishments could be announced in e-mail messages or in newsletters prepared by the human resources department so that everyone is aware that the boss (as well as her subordinates) is productive and deserving of respect. Organizations can help women leaders to succeed by providing them with the support and resources they need to do their jobs effectively, for the power of a leadership role can be enhanced or diminished by the resources that are available to the leader. This is related to the finding that women’s influence is enhanced when men are placed in situations in which they can benefit from her competence (Carli, 1999, 2001). The more resources a woman has that can be used in the form of reward power, the more motivation her subordinates have to view her positively. Organizations must develop and enforce clear policies about gender equality to create a climate that is favorable to women at all levels of the organization. Furthermore, these policies should be integrated into employee training. For example, information about contrapower harassment should be presented in anti–sexual harassment training. Social psychology research (Goodwin & Fiske, 2001) shows that when people are specifically ‘‘instructed to be as accurate as possible’’ in rating job applicants or evaluating their managers or employees, ‘‘they can and do provide less stereotypic[al] impressions’’ than they would otherwise (p. 365). Thus, training for managers and hiring committees should include these instructions, and objective measurements (e.g., rating scales) that also include these instructions should be utilized at all levels of an organization. It has often been noted that the highest echelon of leadership in any organization sets the tone for the entire organization and creates the climate that pervades it. If the leaders at the top set an example of valuing and respecting female and male employees equally, their views will have a positive effect on the dynamics of the organization at all levels. Changes in the Leadership Context Often the context of leadership itself must change for female leaders to be as effective as their male counterparts. Contexts especially unfavorable to women include groups composed of 85% or more men (in which women can experience the effects of tokenism), situations in © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

60


which task accomplishment is the only valued outcome, short-term groups that do not get to know each other well, and groups that do not require complex social interactions (Yoder, 2001). Research (Collins, 1998; Tolbert, Simons, Andrews, & Rhee, 1995) suggests that groups must reach the level of 35%–40% women before the effects of tokenism are completely negated, at least in academic settings. Thus, increasing the percentage of women in male-dominated groups is one important way to make the context more favorable for women. Although it is not desirable to shift value entirely away from task accomplishment, other outcomes such as unit cohesiveness, employee satisfaction, and personal growth can also be considered when leaders’ (or potential leaders’) performance is evaluated. These accomplishments tend to be related to skills that are utilized by transformational and participative leaders, so increasing their importance makes the leadership context more favorable to women. Social psychologists such as Fiske and Neuberg (1990) have shown that interdependence decreases stereotyping because people know more about the individuals with whom they work closely and want to have accurate and positive evaluations of them. Therefore, stressing the importance of teamwork and interdependence can be helpful in reducing stereotypic evaluations of woman bosses by their subordinates and by their superiors, especially if the superiors are reminded that their own productivity outcomes depend in part on the success of woman middle managers (Goodwin & Fiske, 2001). Woman leaders should be aware of whether particular contexts are likely to be more or less favorable to them so that they can pursue opportunities at organizations in which they can thrive and so that they can understand the challenges of working in stereotypically masculine settings. Changing the context of a leadership situation is often very difficult and is usually not within any one person’s control. For example, the U.S. military, which is recruiting ever larger numbers of women, cannot substantially increase the numbers of women in all job categories because of government regulations that prohibit women from direct engagement in combat. Furthermore, organizations that do make efforts to change the leadership context by increasing the numbers of women at all levels or by broadening the definition of successful leadership can inadvertently create other problems for women as a result. For example, the expansion of the number of women in a group or an organization might be seen by some employees as preferential selection, and the new women could be greeted with a backlash and stepped-up attempts to marginalize them (Collins, 1998). Women must be aware of these dynamics and take steps to help themselves as well as to work for changes in leadership contexts at their own workplaces and beyond.



61

CONCLUSION Although it is discouraging that women fare poorly in highly masculine leadership contexts, it is encouraging that women fare somewhat better than men do when leadership is defined in more androgynous terms. Men still have access to a wider range of power bases, and they are free to influence others by using any of those power bases without consequences. Women, however, are more likely than men to have developed the influence strategies that are required to excel in the emergent contemporary workplace. As the communal components of leadership become increasingly valued and the androgynous nature of effective leadership is increasingly recognized, the bias against woman bosses should diminish. In the meantime, there continues to be a ‘‘narrow band of acceptable behavior’’ that is allowed for woman leaders—‘‘behaviors that are somewhat feminine but not too feminine and somewhat masculine but not too masculine’’ (Eagly, 2003, p. 91). Women and men alike will benefit from a new conception of leadership, because the traditional notion of the ‘‘great man’’ excludes not only women but also men who are not ‘‘born with’’ leadership ability. Effective leadership is both an art and a science; it requires a relentless dedication to the development of the skills and abilities that are necessary to move people toward a common goal. The cultural embrace of the androgynous leader will serve to access the large untapped potential of women as well as to enlighten current leaders of both sexes and increase the effectiveness of all who currently hold, or hope to hold, leadership positions. We look forward to the day that woman bosses are described, evaluated, and appreciated for themselves and their own leadership styles rather than for their adaptation to cultural stereotypes such as ‘‘good witch,’’ ‘‘bad bitch,’’ or ‘‘mother.’’ We hope that the wait will not be very long.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Berg, J. H., Stephan, W. G., & Dodson, M. (1981). Attributional modesty in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 711–727. Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 301–317. Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669. Brett, J., & Stroh, L. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Who do manager do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78.


62


Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59. Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leaders behavior. Gender Roles, 23, 413–419. Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576. Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 81–99. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741. Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 629–636. Catalyst. (2007). Bureau of Labor Statistics current population survey annual averages 2003. Available online at www.catalyst.org/files/tid/tidbits04.pdf. Center for the American Woman and Politics. (2006). Fact sheet. Available online at www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts.html#cabinet. Chrisler, J. C. (1998). Teacher versus scholar: Role conflict for women? In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Career strategies for women in academe (pp. 107–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chrisler, J. C., Herr, L., & Murstein, N. K. (1998). Women as faculty leaders. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Career strategies for women in academe (pp. 189–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clapp, Sarah K. (2007). Contrapower sexual harassment of military officers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Connecticut College, New London, CT. Collins, L. H. (1998). Competition and contact: The dynamics behind resistance to affirmative action. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Career strategies for women in academe (pp. 45–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crittenden, K. S., & Wiley, M. G. (1980). Causal attribution and behavioral response to failure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 353–358. Crittenden, K. S., & Wiley, M. G. (1985). When egotism is normative: Selfpresentational norms guiding attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 360–365. Crosby, F. J. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386. DeSouza, E., & Fansler, A. G. (2003). Contrapower sexual harassment: A survey of students and faculty members. Gender Roles, 48, 529–542. Drucker, P. (1991, November/December). The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review, pp. 69–79. Eagly, A. H. (2003). Few women at the top: How role incongruity produces prejudice and the glass ceiling. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 79–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12. Eagly, A. H., & Johannsen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.



63

Eagly, A. H., Johannsen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Eagen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 1–45. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 117, 125–145. Fels, A. (2004, April). Do women lack ambition? Harvard Business Review, pp. 50–60. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation: From category-based to individuating processes as a function of information, motivation, and attention. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 1–108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. The Fortune 500: Our ranking of America’s largest corporations. (2006). Fortune. French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Friedman, C., & Yorio, K. (2006). The girl’s guide to being a boss (without being a bitch): Valuable lessons, smart suggestions, and true stories for succeeding as the chick-in-charge. New York: Morgan Road Books. Goleman, D. (2004, January). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, pp. 82–91. Goodwin, S. A., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Power and gender: The double-edged sword of ambivalence. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 358–366). New York: Wiley. Gould, R. J., & Slone, C. G. (1982). The ‘‘feminine modesty’’ effect: A selfpresentational interpretation of gender differences in causal attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 477–485. Grauerholz, E. (1989). Sexual harassment of women professors by students: Exploring the dynamics of power, authority, and gender in a university setting. Gender Roles, 21, 789–801. Gruber, K. J., & White, J. W. (1986). Gender differences in the perception of self’s and others’ use of power strategies. Gender Roles, 15, 109–118. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942. Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of gender-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 99–105. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. Herzberg, F. (2003, January). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, pp. 87–95. Hogue, M. B., Yoder, J. D., & Ludwig, J. (2002). Increasing initial leadership effectiveness: Assisting both women and men. Gender Roles, 46, 377–384.


64


Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179–189. Holmstrom, A. J., Burleson, B. R., & Jones, S. M. (2005). Some consequences for helpers who deliver ‘‘cold comfort’’: Why it’s worse for women than men to be inept when providing emotional support. Gender Roles, 53, 153–172. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45, 144–153. Kilmartin, C. T. (2007). The masculine self (3rd ed.). New York: Sloan. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359–375. McKinney, K. (1992). Contrapower sexual harassment: The effect of student gender and type of behavior on faculty perceptions. Sex Roles, 27, 627–643. Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The ‘‘good manager’’: Masculine or androgynous? Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395–403. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1989). The ‘‘good manager’’: Did androgyny fare better in the 1980s? Group and Organization Studies, 14, 216–233. Pratch, L., & Jacobowitz, J. (1996). Gender, motivation, and coping in the evaluation of leadership effectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48, 203–220. Ragins, B. R. (1991). Gender effects in subordinate evaluations of leaders: Real or artifact? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 259–268. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, pp. 119–125. Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C.L.Z., & Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male–female and White–Black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688. Schein, V, E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41. Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think manager-think male stereotype. Gender Roles, 49, 353–363. Sharpe, R. (2000). As leaders, women rule. Available online at www.businessweek.com/common_frames/ca.htm?/2000/00_47/b3708145.htm. Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (2000). Motivated stereotyping of women: She’s fine if she praised me but incompetent if she criticized me. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1329–1342. Taylor, D. M., Ruggiero, K. M., & Louis, W. R. (1996). Personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Toward a two-factor explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 193–202.



65

Tolbert, P. S., Simons, T., Andrews, A., & Rhee, J. (1995). The effects of gender composition in academic departments on faculty turnover. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 562–579. Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1994). ‘‘Let me put it this way, John’’: Conversational strategies of women in leadership positions. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 199–209. U.S. Department of Defense. (2006). Active duty military personnel by service rank/grade. Available online at http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/ MILITARY/Miltop.htm. Wiley, M. G., & Crittenden, K. S. (1992). By your attribution shall you be known: Consequences of attributional accounts for professional and gender identities. Gender Roles, 27, 259–276. Willemsen, T. M. (2002). Gender typing of the successful manager: A stereotype reconsidered. Gender Roles, 46, 385–391. Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.


Chapter 5

Women Who Started Up: The State of Women in Entrepreneurship Presha E. Neidermeyer Emily Buenn Robert Edelman

Because women constitute more than 51% of the U.S. population and 47% of the workforce (Lowrey, 2006), women’s concerns are becoming increasingly important as the business world seeks to obtain and retain a qualified workforce. Given that women provide the majority of labor within the home, alternate types of employment are becoming increasingly popular as individuals, particularly women, seek to balance their work and family commitments. Among these alternative business arrangements is entrepreneurship, which is attractive to many because of its potential flexibility compared to the conditions of a traditional working environment.

THE U.S. PERSPECTIVE Woman-led businesses increased at a substantial rate in the most recently reported 5-year period. Although these firms are generally smaller in scale than their male-controlled counterparts, they experienced significant growth. There was nearly 20% increase in the number of independent contractors in general, whereas woman-controlled firms with employees increased more than 8%. Compared to their


68


Table 5-1. U.S. Firms, by Gender of Owner and Sales, 2002

U.S. Firms (total) Female-Owned Male-Owned Equally Female- and Male-Owned Other

Number of all firms

Percentage of all firms

Sales and receipts ($ trillion)a

22,974,655 6,489,259 13,184,033 2,693,360

100.00% 28.25% 57.39% 11.72%

22.60 0.94 7.06 0.73

983,852 144,784 535,574 271,660

494,399

2.15%

13.82

27,953,368

Average sales per firm ($)a

a

Not inflation-adjusted.

men-owned counterparts, woman-owned firms increased more than 4% (or 7% in firms with employees). During this time, firms owned by women added 70,000 jobs to the economy, whereas their counterparts decreased employment by 1 million, according to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (Lowrey, 2006). Despite the overall magnitude of jobs added, the smaller number of employees led to smaller sales from woman-led firms. There were approximately 6.5 million woman-owned businesses, which accounted for about 28% of all businesses. These numbers are half of what men-owned firms generated. Moreover, the average man-owned business generated more than 3.5 times as much in sales and receipts ($535,574) as the average woman-owned business did ($144,784). Table 5-1 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c) shows the 2002 statistics for American firms. Focusing on those firms that have employees (see Table 5.2), woman-owned businesses also lag behind man-owned businesses. Although they employ 7.1 million people, only about 14% of all female-owned businesses in comparison to 27% of male-owned businesses act as employers. Also, the average number of employees per employing firm, as well as the average sales per employee, or the average payroll per employee, are smaller for woman-owned than for manowned firms. The category ‘‘Other’’ in both tables contains publicly traded companies, which explains the significantly higher numbers of average sales than those for either female- or male-owned firms. Figure 5-1 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c) shows the main industries for female-operated businesses. It shows that the vast majority (64%) of women were involved in services; 14% in retail trade; and 8% in real estate and rental and leasing. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Table 5-2. U.S. Firms with Employees, by Gender of Owner and Sales, 2002

Sales and Number of Percentage receipts Number of firms of firms ($ trillion)* employees U.S. Firms (total) Female-Owned with Employees Male-Owned with Employees Equally Female- and MaleOwned with Employees Other

Average number of employees per firm

Average Average sales per payroll per employee ($)a employee ($)a

5,524,784 916,657 3,524,969 717,961

24.05% 14.13% 26.74% 26.66%

21.84 0.80 6.60 0.63

110,766,605 7,141,369 42,428,508 5,664,948

20.05 7.79 12.04 7.89

197,137 112,423 154,709 110,716

34,419 24,299 31,108 22,895

352,720

71.34%

13.80

55,398,389

157.06

249,050

39,453

a

Not inflation-adjusted.


70

Figure 5-1.


Percentage of Female-Owned Businesses by Type, 2002

FEMALE AND MALE ENTREPRENEURS: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH The information shown in Figure 5-1 leads one to question the differences between the intentions of women and men in starting their own businesses. Why, for example, are there still fewer woman-owned than man-owned businesses in the United States? Is it because woman entrepreneurs encounter more hurdles in founding and developing a business, or is it because women have less aspiration than men to develop their businesses or to become entrepreneurs at all? We interviewed 10 entrepreneurs of small firms in various industries to discern their motivations and experiences. We will integrate the responses of these women with reports on the research. There are two main themes in the research on gender differences in entrepreneurship. The first contrasts gender differences in entrepreneurship after venture creation. The topics that are often addressed in studies that make those comparisons are the following: differences between female and male entrepreneurs in psychological traits; obstacles to and qualifications for founding a business; objectives for the business and reasons for its foundation; and myths and perceptions of woman entrepreneurs that prevail in their environment. The second theme addresses gender differences in the desire to become an entrepreneur before venture creation. Overall, there is little gender difference; it certainly exists, but the question is really whether the difference accounts for the supply of potential entrepreneurs and the size differences of the businesses. In most cases, contradicting findings have occurred, but these might be the result of different research methodologies, samples, © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Women Who Started Up

71

and geographical and cultural issues (Menzies, 2004). The following section discusses factors in entrepreneurship that are often thought to differ between men and women. CAREER ASPIRATIONS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005) found, in a sample of students seeking a master’s degree in business administration (MBA), that women have significantly lower entrepreneurial intentions than men have, which would explain the statistics that there are fewer women entrepreneurs than men entrepreneurs. This research also showed that women had the same level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy as men had, suggesting that women feel as capable as men in being entrepreneurs. One possible explanation for this combination of results is that women, compared with men, evaluate an entrepreneurial environment to be harder or less rewarding than working for someone else. In our current research sample, not a single interviewee expressed an explicit desire to become an entrepreneur after finishing her education; rather, each worked for an employer initially, then decided to start her own business after concluding that being an employee was unacceptable to her. Motivation to Become an Entrepreneur Income generation is an important motivation for female entrepreneurs as well as men entrepreneurs in starting a business (Coughlin, 2002). However, there are also gender differences in motivations for starting a business redundant. Women often become entrepreneurs for a better work–life balance—to have more flexibility in combining their family responsibilities and professional accomplishments (LeeGosselin & Grise, 1990). One of our survey participants responded as follows: The greatest challenge I face is in trying to integrate my family life with being a surgeon (and running a successful plastic eye reconstructive business). I am not only a surgeon, but also a wife and a mother of three. Being female makes running this business three times as difficult.

Whereas women tend to start businesses to better balance their different life roles, men entrepreneurs mostly report economic and financial reasons as their motivators (Brush, 1992). This was echoed by one of our survey participants, who stated, ‘‘I opened my legal services business after working for other lawyers when I saw that otherwise the majority of my labor would continue to benefit my employer (financially) more than me.’’ The motive for entrepreneurship goes beyond mere income generation; entrepreneurship can contribute to self-fulfillment and provides © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

72


room for personal development and success. This is particularly important for women, who in many societies are given less respect for their accomplishments than men are (Coughlin, 2002). Another one of our survey respondents said the following: I think that running your own business and being your own boss has tremendous satisfactions and real benefits that are never or have not been extolled. You are always told [that] it is difficult and [that] you may have losses, but [you] are not told of the wonderful benefits of running your own business. I enjoy working for myself. It provides me with the flexibility I need and the creative expression necessary to run a successful business.

Entrepreneurship is sometimes said to be a promising way to escape discrimination in the formal labor market, especially for women. The wage gap between the sexes still exists, and the management level is still harder for women to achieve than it is for men. Those circumstances can lead women to found a business to tap their full economic potential and to avoid the ‘‘glass ceiling’’ in the formal labor market (Weiler & Bernasek, 2001). Two of our survey participants said the following: ‘‘I decided to open my own business when it became apparent that I was not going to move up anymore where I was employed. It was disturbing, because I had worked there since graduating from college’’ and ‘‘I left the legal profession because there was too much negativity.’’ Nevertheless, other findings (Allen, Langowitz, & Minitti, 2007) point in another direction: One way to classify entrepreneurship by the motivation to become an entrepreneur is to distinguish necessity from opportunity. Those who become entrepreneurs by opportunity choose entrepreneurship among several career options, because this is what they want to do. On the contrary, entrepreneurship by necessity is chosen because of a lack of alternatives in existing and satisfying employment (Allen et al.). In Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Allen et al. display data about the amount of opportunity-and necessity-driven entrepreneurship, which allowed calculation of the opportunity to necessity ratio differentiated by country and gender. In the United States, Allen and colleagues found, 9.75 women chose entrepreneurship as an opportunity for every 1 woman who chose it out of necessity. For men the ratio was significantly lower (5.22:1). Therefore, women in the United States are less likely than men to become entrepreneurs because of necessity. This contradicts the theory that women start a business primarily to escape the glass ceiling. This could be due to the demographics involved in the evolving entrepreneurship environment. Growth Intention The statistics on woman-owned businesses show that a lot of them tend to be small. Researchers do not agree on whether this is the result © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


73

of higher obstacles for women entrepreneurs or to fewer growth intentions of women entrepreneurs. Some argue that woman entrepreneurs do not have the same intention to enlarge their businesses as their male counterparts do, but that they are content with a small and stable company. Lee-Gosselin and Grise (1990) suggest the development of an entrepreneurial model that reflects their findings that the vast majority of women entrepreneurs have only modest objectives for growth. According to their study, founding a business, for female entrepreneurs, is often a means to achieve more flexibility for and a better balance of professional and personal needs, especially regarding their family responsibilities, and not a means to achieve above-average financial success. However, newer studies find that female business owners’ growth orientation is increasing. According to the Center for Women’s Business Research (2003), the ‘‘new generation’’ of women entrepreneurs— women who started their businesses in the 1990s—are more growthoriented and more similar to male entrepreneurs than their predecessors were. Whereas only 25% of women who have been in business for 20 years or more report that they seek growth for their businesses over the next years, 42% percent of the new generation has this objective. This compares to 49% of all male entrepreneurs. The study also indicates that the new generation of women entrepreneurs is not only seeking growth but actually achieving it, for the revenue gap between this group of women entrepreneurs and their male counterparts is less distinct. When asked about satisfaction with their businesses, the 10 entrepreneurs we queried stated that they were intent on increasing the magnitude of their business sales. One woman said the following: I could not be more thrilled by the performance of my business, yet I am never satisfied so am constantly inventing and growing. I feel that complacency is the beginning of death, so you always have to have a fresh page every day of your life.

Some studies even find that the modest growth intention of women business owners is a myth that represents a hurdle for them, in terms of acknowledgment of their entrepreneurial activity, but especially when seeking funding for their venture (Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene, & Hart, 2001; Menzies, 2004). Access to Capital A lack of access to funds to finance their venture is often mentioned as an obstacle for women entrepreneurs. Although improvements in access to capital are also reported, women business owners do in fact acquire less funding than their male counterparts do. In 1998, 54% of women entrepreneurs had bank credit, compared to 46% in 1996. Of © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

74


those women with bank credit, only 34% had credit higher than $50,000, compared to 54% of male business owners with bank credit. Even more striking is the low number of venture funds received by women. In 2003, only 4.2% of the $19 billion of venture capital was invested into woman-owned businesses (National Women’s Business Council, 2005). All the entrepreneurs in our study personally financed their new business venture through either family capital and personal savings or credit cards. It was not until the business was up and running that access to more traditional lending sources, such as banks, became available. Insufficient funds are a plausible reason that prevent women’s businesses from growing. However, this is not necessarily the result of gender-based discrimination by suppliers of capital; there are studies that show that female and male entrepreneurs are equally likely to receive funding when they apply for it, but that women seek capital less often than men do (De Bruin, Bush, & Welter, 2006). One possible reason for this is that women’s businesses operate mainly in the service sector, which usually is not very capital-intensive. Moreover, service companies tend to have few assets that can be used as collateral for loans (Cleaver, 2004). According to the Center for Women’s Business Research (2003), only about 25% of woman entrepreneurs (except African-American women, among whom this percentage is significantly higher) stated that they have encountered hurdles when searching for funding for their venture. Woman entrepreneurs in the same study reported that the reasons for the difficulties in funding their business were personal risk aversion, gender discrimination, and hesitant investors because of a weak economy. Qualification for Entrepreneurship Although men and women achieve similar levels of education, the fields of education differ widely. Men are more often enrolled in technological study programs such as engineering or computer science, and this is reflected in a higher percentage of men creating high-tech ventures (Menzies, 2004). Previous work experience is also a factor of entrepreneurship that differs between men and women business owners. Whereas the women most often had experience in teaching, retail sales, or office administration, the men had more experience in managerial, technological, and scientific positions. Moreover, the men tended to have more previous entrepreneurial experience when they founded a business (Brush, 1992). Family Responsibilities and Ties Women still adopt more family responsibilities than men do for child care, dependent care, and responsibility for the household © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


75

(Coughlin, 2002). One fact that highlights this is the gender difference in the numbers of single parents who are raising children under the age of 18: In 2004 about 8.3 million single mothers (i.e., in almost 25% of U.S. families) were doing so, but only 2.3 million single fathers were doing so (Lowrey, 2006). Family is often argued to play a more important role for women than for men. Women not only still tend to carry the main proportion of domestic responsibilities, they also tend to build their social network in a way that is more dependent on family ties; this links them closer to the family than men, who were found to have more diverse networks outside the family (Brush, 1992). For many women entrepreneurs, the family played an important role in the decision to found a business—for example, to achieve a higher flexibility in work–life balance, such as in combining family responsibilities and professional achievement (Jome, Donahue, & Siegel, 2006; Lee-Gosselin & Grise, 1990). This fits well with the finding that the presence of young children in the household increases women’s likelihood of founding a business (Caputo & Dolinsky, 1998). Networks One factor affecting entrepreneurship that is different for men and women is networks and the social capital inherent in them. Although no significant differences in the process of making contacts and building networks have been found between the genders, differences in the composition of male and female networks have been discovered. Compared to men, women tend to have smaller social networks as well as networks with a higher proportion of women, which was found to be disadvantageous in entrepreneurship (Brush, 1992). Because many business networks are still male-dominated, favoritism shown toward men is likely to create difficulties for women in the traditional labor market as well as in entrepreneurial networks, such as with customers, suppliers, or investors (Weiler & Bernasek, 2001). Renzulli, Aldrich, and Moody (2000) confirmed that the composition of social networks differs among the genders; however, they did not find that this leads to disadvantages for women entrepreneurs. They suggest that, because of the empowerment that women have experienced in the last few decades, the social capital of women’s networks has become more valuable for business. Virtually all of the interview participants cited a member of their own family as their mentor, mainly their parents. The sole individual who cited someone else as a mentor named a spiritual figure on whom she had based her beliefs. Though certainly helpful, these mentors, by and large, cannot open doors in the same manner that a business mentor can. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

76


Myths and Perceptions For every woman entrepreneur (as for every entrepreneur in general), the environment’s perception of her is important for her success, because her business depends on how her customers, suppliers, and business partners, including investors, view her. Baron, Markman, and Hirsa (2001) revealed that the environment perceives women entrepreneurs more positively than it perceives women managers and that this effect does not occur for men entrepreneurs and managers. People rated women entrepreneurs higher in personal traits such as assertiveness, decisiveness, or ambition as well as in the causes of their success; that is, their success was more likely to be attributed to internal causes like effort than to external causes like luck. Other studies, however, draw a less positive image of perceptions of female entrepreneurs. Brush and colleagues (2001) came to the conclusion that many of the differences that have been argued to be inherent in women entrepreneurs are a common perception but are not actually true. Some of the myths they identify are that women entrepreneurs do not seek high growth for their businesses, that they have neither the right education nor the necessary experience to start a successful venture, and that they do not submit business plans. Menzies (2004) widely confirmed, by investigating a sample of Canadian women entrepreneurs, that those myths do not apply to women entrepreneurs. It is argued (Brush et al., 2001) that those myths impede women from doing business, especially when they are seeking capital for their venture.

Minority Women as Entrepreneurs In addition to gender, race is a factor that influences entrepreneurial activity and leads to structural and experiential differences for the women entrepreneurs who are generally the subjects of research (Harvey, 2005). Minority women who are entrepreneurs, or women entrepreneurs of color, are non-White and/or Hispanic women entrepreneurs. The general trend for minority women–owned business is an amplified version of that for the overall women-owned business. The growth rates are even higher than those for women entrepreneurs in general, but the success of the businesses, measured in terms of revenues or numbers of employees, tends to be lower. The number of businesses owned by women of color has grown even more significantly than that of women entrepreneurs in general. According to the Center for Women’s Business Research (2007), the growth rate of minority women–owned businesses reached an astonishing 120% from 1997 to 2006. Figure 5-2 shows that in all categories women outpaced men in business ownership. The U.S. Census Bureau (2006a, 2006b) describes the status quo for minority women–owned businesses for the 2002. Table 5-3 depicts how many © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

77


Figure 5-2. Growth in Minority-Owned Firms by Gender businesses were owned by each minority and how many of these were owned by women of that minority. In every minority category, the percentage of businesses owned by women of that minority was higher than for White women. Whereas only about 28% of all White business owners were women, almost 46% of all Black business owners were women. However, when we look at the average performance of womenowned businesses in terms of receipts per firm, we see that there is a large gap between, on the one hand, the Black or African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander businesses and, on the other hand, the White and Asian businesses. As depicted in Table 5-4 (U.S. Census Bureau, 200b), Table 5-3. Ownership of Firms by Gender and Race

Race

Percentage of Total number of Number of female-owned firms (male- and female-owned firms for all firms female-owned) firms of that race

White Black or African American Asian American Indian and Alaska Native Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latinoa

19,899,839

5,580,162

28.04%

1,197,567 1,103,587

547,032 339,554

45.68% 30.77%

201,387

78,292

38.88%

28,948

10,582

36.56% 33.4%

a

No absolute numbers found.


78


Table 5-4. Female-Owned Firms by Race

Race White Black or African American Asian American Indian and Alaska Native Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

Number of female-owned firms

Receipts ($1,000)

Receipts per firm ($1,000)

5,580,162 547,032 339,554

862,590,849 20,670,616 53,652,929

154.58 37.79 158.01

78,292

5,763,268

73.61

10,582

795,963

75.22

the average White and Asian women entrepreneurs have annual receipts of $150,000–$160,000, whereas the average Black or AfricanAmerican women entrepreneur reaches only about $38,000 in annual receipts. American Indian and Alaska Native as well as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander women entrepreneurs reach about $74,000 and $75,000, respectively. Thus, although the number of minority women’s businesses is increasing at a tremendous rate, the performance of most subgroup businesses is below average in terms of receipt size and employment. This is especially true for Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander women business owners. One factor that contributes to this development is the higher level of discrimination against minority women than against women in general, which puts more pressure on them to find creative ways to reach success. Minority women often find themselves at the bottom of the labor pool, where they are offered little economic stability, income, status, or opportunity for enhancement (Harvey, 2005). Lewis (1999) found that race and/or gender discrimination was a main motivation for AfricanAmerican women entrepreneurs to start a business. Discrimination also explains the higher percentage of women entrepreneurs among all entrepreneurs in every minority group. With the prevailing discrimination, it seems more attractive to found a business than to be employed because the opportunities in the labor market are so limited. Another factor in these statistics is the increasing level of education among minorities, especially Black women. Historically, they have been excluded from many institutions of higher education (Harvey, 2005). Because this has changed, and Black women are earning a greater percentage of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, they have the knowledge that is necessary to found a business, and they make use of this knowledge (Hopkins, 2006). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


79

Nevertheless, entrepreneurship for minority women entrepreneurs does not necessarily represent an end to economic problems and discrimination. As the numbers above have shown, Black women business owners especially, but also American Indian and Alaska Native as well as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander women entrepreneurs, lag behind White and Asian women entrepreneurs (in terms of receipt size and percentage of employing firms). The literature on minority women business owners suggests that they are more disadvantaged than White women in entrepreneurial options such as occupational choices and entrepreneurial resources like access to capital (SmithHunter, 2004). For example, African-American women business owners report a much higher percentage of obstacles when searching for access to capital than other racial groups do (Center for Women’s Business Research, 2003). Those findings closely relate to the lower performance of minority-owned businesses described above. As long as minority women have fewer entrepreneurial opportunities and less access to entrepreneurial resources than White women have, their businesses will encounter greater obstacles to success. Although the high growth rates of minority women entrepreneurs are promising, the situation still requires improvement. Specific affirmative action is suggested to help deploy the full entrepreneurial potential of society.

INTERVENTIONS, SUGGESTIONS, AND SUPPORT TO EMPOWER FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS Although women’s entrepreneurial activity has experienced a tremendous growth over the last 30 years, women still lag behind their male counterparts in size of business, number of employees, and funding of the venture. The research is not clear whether this is caused by external obstacles inflicted on women by the economy and society, by less motivation for entrepreneurship inherent in women, or by the socialization process since birth. Regardless of the cause, there are reasons to encourage and support women for entrepreneurship. If women’s entrepreneurial potential lies idle, that means unrealized wealth creation, job creation, and innovation for U.S. society and the economy. It also means unrealized opportunities for investors (Brush et al., 2001). Furthermore, it prevents women from tapping the full potential of economic well-being. Governmental and nongovernmental initiatives, organizations, and programs exist to empower female entrepreneurs. We will discuss different starting points, how to facilitate entrepreneurship for women, and implementation in the United States. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

80


Laws and Regulations The government can facilitate the position of women business owners by implementing laws and regulations on their behalf. Laws against discrimination, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 (which prevents creditors from basing credit decisions on gender, race, or other factors that do not directly influence creditworthiness), are aimed at achieving more equality (Federal Trade Commission, 1998). The Women’s Business Ownership Act of 1988 (House Resolution 5050) was established to provide support for female entrepreneurs. It provided further protection from unjustified credit rejection, for example, by allowing commercial loan applicants to request a written statement in case of denial (Myler, 1989). Moreover, it influenced the entrepreneurial situation for women in the United States by supplying seed funding for women’s business centers. These centers provide technical assistance, entrepreneurial education, and other resources for women entrepreneurs. In 2006, about 100 women’s business centers were providing support to women entrepreneurs (Langowitz, Sharpe, & Godwyn, 2006). Since this concept has proved to be successful, the Women’s Small Business Ownership Program Act of 2006 granted more money for the foundation of new women’s business centers and supported successful centers with renewal grants (Center for Women’s Business Research, 2007).

Access to Capital There are several ways to ease the access to capital for women entrepreneurs. First, measures like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 can be implemented to facilitate the regular process of getting credit. Second, there are attempts to make it easier for women to obtain venture capital. An important factor that makes it difficult for women to obtain venture funding is limited access to male-dominated venture capital networks. Contacts with advisors, like accountants, attorneys, or fellow business owners, are a means by which women business owners get venture funding (Wells Fargo, 2000), and attempts are being made to institutionalize such access (Sherman, 2002). One essential source of support for women entrepreneurs (and small-business owners in general) is the loan programs of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). These provide guarantees for loans made by private and other institutions. In 2003, the SBA backed women-owned businesses with $2.4 billion (National Women’s Business Council, 2004). Furthermore, private institutions are increasing their support of women business owners. Realizing that this group has a strong economic base, several banks started programs with the intention of © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


81

backing women-owned businesses with credit. For example, Wells Fargo and First Union have rolled out programs tailored specifically to women-owned businesses (Guttner, 2000). Mentoring Another way to facilitate entrepreneurship for women is to provide them with a mentor. A mentor for a women entrepreneur is a business owner or an experienced person from a financial, legal, or other profession who gives advice, support, guidance, and training to the mentee. The mentor can be viewed as a trusted counselor, and, often even more important, acts as a role model for the mentee (Coughlin, 2002). It has been shown that people are more likely to ‘‘do what they see’’; for example, it was found that people who have an early exposure to an entrepreneurial relative or close friend are more likely to become entrepreneurs themselves (Jones, 2002). However, it is still harder for women than for men to find an entrepreneurial role model who is in a similar life situation, because there are still fewer female than male entrepreneurs. Mentoring institutionalizes the process of finding such a role model and provides learning opportunities, coaching, and networking. Education Formal education on entrepreneurship makes entrepreneurial activity more likely (Zhao et al., 2005). Besides entrepreneurship classes in colleges and universities that target everybody regardless of gender, institutions that specifically aim at educating women on entrepreneurship are a means by which to enhance female entrepreneurial activity. Women’s business centers play an important role in entrepreneurial education, training, and technical assistance for women (Langowitz et al., 2006). In the United States, about 2,200 entrepreneurship courses are offered at 1,600 colleges (De Bruin et al., 2006). In terms of general education, the achievements of certain educational levels are similar for both sexes. However, the educational backgrounds of women and men vary. Women obtain fewer degrees than men in technological subjects such as science and engineering. Moreover, the number of high-technology ventures is significantly higher among male entrepreneurs, making the venture more likely to be funded by venture capitalists. If we may assume that the former is a cause of the latter, then it is clear that programs that encourage women to study computer science and engineering are an important step in improving women’s position in entrepreneurship (Menzies, 2004). Networking Being part of a network is important for entrepreneurs—for example, to obtain business, capital, or information. With a network in © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

82


which resources, knowledge, or information can be shared and business decisions can be made, the process of founding and running a business is facilitated for female entrepreneurs (Coughlin, 2002). Networks that link female entrepreneurs to each other, or to institutions that can facilitate access to male-dominated networks for women, serve this purpose (Ryann, 2006; Sherman, 2002). An important step in the improvement of networking opportunities for women is the current development of empowering women: The more that women are in high positions, the easier it will become for them to be part of useful networks (Renzulli et al., 2000). Special Programs for Minority Women Entrepreneurs As the section on minority women entrepreneurs has shown, certain minority women are doubly disadvantaged. Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned measures to empower female entrepreneurs, there are special actions that target minority women entrepreneurs. The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) has the objective to support entrepreneurs who belong to a minority (regardless of gender). The MBDA is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and helps minority business owners through minority business development centers, Native American business development centers, and business resource centers. These assist minority business owners in the development of business plans, marketing, management, and financial planning (MBDA, 2005). INTERNET RESOURCES Finally, for readers who want additional information on women entrepreneurs or for those who are seeking support while founding or running a business, the following Internet resources can be helpful. The list is not exhaustive, but is a good starting point for further research. . Association of Women’s Business Centers (www.awbc.biz) . Center for Women’s Business Research (www.cfwbr.org) . Minority Business Development Agency (U.S. Department of Commerce), (www.mbda.gov) . National Association of Women Business Owners (www.nawbo.org) . National Women’s Business Council (www.nwbc.gov) . Online Women’s Business Center (U.S. Small Business Administration) (www.onlinewbc.gov) . U.S. Small Business Administration (www.sba.gov)



83

REFERENCES Allen, E., Langowitz, N., Minitti, M. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2006 Report on women and entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA: Babson College. Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Hirsa, A. (2001). Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: Evidence for differential effects of attributional augmenting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 923–929. Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective, and future directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16, 5–30. Brush, C., Carter, N. Gatewood, E., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2001). The Diana Project women business owners and equity capital: The myths dispelled. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center. Caputo, R. K., & Dolinsky, A. (1998). Women’s choice to pursue self-employment: The role of financial and human capital of household members. Journal of Small Business Management, 36, 8–17. Center for Women’s Business Research. (2003, August 25). Growth is a key focus for all women entrepreneurs: Women making a difference. Los Angeles Business Journal. Center for Women’s Business Research. (2007, February 20). Firms owned by women of color outpace all firms in growth in numbers: Yet revenues and employment are lower than average. Available online at www.cfwbr.org/press/ details.php?id¼147. Chun, J., Griffin, C. E., Phillips, D. (1996). Women & minority entrepreneurs [special report]. Entrepreneur, 24 (1). Cleaver, J. (2004, June). On the money: Women entrepreneurs are experiencing greater success finding financing for their business, but is it enough? Entrepreneur, 32 (6), 44. Coughlin, J. H. (2002). The rise of women entrepreneurs: People, processes, and global trends. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Towards building cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30 (5), 585–594. Federal Trade Commission. (March 1998). Facts for consumers: Equal credit opportunity. Available online at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/ ecoa.shtm. Guttner, T. (2000). Finally, credit where credit is due: After years of ignoring women business owners, banks and other lenders are beckoning. Business Week. Available online at www.businessweek.com/2000/00_26/ b3687149.htm. Harvey, A. (2005). Becoming entrepreneurs: Intersection of race, class, and gender at the Black beauty salon. Gender & Society, 19 (6), 789–808. Hopkins, J. (2006, August 24). African-American women step up in business world: More women of color take lead on path to entrepreneurship. USA Today, p. B3. Jome, L. M., Donahue, M. P., & Siegel, L. A. (2006). Working in the uncharted technology frontier: Characteristics of women Web entrepreneurs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (1), 127–147.


84


Jones, M. A. (2002). Empowered by choices of entrepreneurship: An intervention for female African American high school students through the My Entrepreneurial Journal (MEJ) Program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (5-B), 2632. Langowitz, N., Sharpe, N., & Godwyn, M. (2006). Women’s business centers in the United States: Effective entrepreneurship training and policy implementation. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 19 (2), 167–182. Lee-Gosselin, H., & Grise, J. (1990). Are women owner-managers challenging our definitions of entrepreneurship? An in-depth survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 423–433. Lewis, K. M. (1999). African-American female adult development: The journey from employee to business owner (women entrepreneurs). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1897B. Lewis, P. (2006). The quest for invisibility: Female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization, 13 (5), 453–469. Lowrey, Y. (2006). Women in business: A demographic review of women’s business ownership. Available online at www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs280tot.pdf. Menzies, T. (2004). Examining venture-related myths concerning women and entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9. Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA). (2005, March 31). The basics of MBDA. Available online at www.mbda.gov/?section_id¼2&bucket_ id¼643&content_id¼3143&well¼entire_page. Mueller, S. L. (2004). Gender gaps in potential for entrepreneurship across countries and cultures. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9 (3), 199–220. Myler, K. (1989, April 23). Business ownership by women grows. Houston Chronicle, p. 7. National Women’s Business Council. (2004). SBA lending improves to womenowned businesses: Full spectrum of loan options contributes to success. Available online at www.nwbc.gov/documents/SBA-Loans-FINAL-4.20.04.pdf. National Women’s Business Council. (2005). Key facts about women business owners and their enterprises. Available online at www.nwbc.gov/ResearchPublications/documents/key_facts_about_women_business_owners_2005_03-05.pdf. Office of Management and Budget. (1997, September 7). Recommendations from the Interagency Committee for the review of the racial and ethnic standards to the Office of Management and Budget concerning changes to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Available online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/directive_15.html. Office of Management and Budget. (2000, March 9). Guidance on aggregation and allocation of data on race for use in civil rights monitoring and enforcement. Available online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/direc tive_15.html. Renzulli, Aldrich, & Moody. (2000). Ryann, A. (2006). Women TIES brings female entrepreneurs together online. CNY Business Journal. Seck, K. (2006). Snowe, Kerry introduce bill to expand women business ownership. Available online at www.sbc.senate.gov/recprd.cfm?id¼258761. Sherman, A. P. (2002). Big plans: Today’s generation of women entrepreneurs displays a newfound love of growth. Entrepreneur, 30 (2), 24.



85

Smith-Hunter, A. E. (2004). Determinants of economic success for women entrepreneurs: An analysis across racial lines. Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics, 3 (1), 210–219. U.S. Census Bureau. (2006a, October 2). Characteristics of businesses, 2002 (Table B). Survey of business owners. Available online at www.census.gov/csd/ sbo/cbsummaryoffindings.htm. U.S. Census Bureau. (2006b, September 14). Statistics for all U.S. firms by kind of business, race, and gender: 2002. Survey of business owners. Available online at www.census.gov/csd/sbo/ccbsummaryoffindings.htm U.S. Census Bureau. (2006c). Women-owned firms: 2002 economic census. Survey of business owners. Available online at www.census.gov/csd/sbo/ women2002.htm. U.S. Small Business Administration. (n.d.), Financial assistance: SBA loans. Available online at www.sba.gov/services/financialassistance/sbaloantopics/ index.html. Weiler, S., & Bernasek, A. (2001). Dodging the glass ceiling? Networks and the new wave of women entrepreneurs. Social Science Journal, 38, 85–103. Wells Fargo (2000). Women-owned firms attract investors for business growth. Available online at www.wellsfargo.com/press/womenfirms20000718? year¼2000. Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1265–1272.


Chapter 6

Leadership and Women Karen Duff-McCall William Schweinle

Female leaders are rare, at least if you believe the history books. For instance, in Axelrod’s (2003) encyclopedic biography of historical leaders, women are greatly outnumbered by men. Furthermore, the few women who are mentioned are well known—for example, Joan of Arc, Theodora, and Queen Elizabeth I—whereas several of the men who are mentioned are fairly obscure—for example, Bajan, leader of the Avars; Samudragupta, the ‘‘Indian Napoleon’’; and Toussant Louverture, a Haitian independence fighter. This historical gender-based imbalance in leadership appears to still be the case today. Simply put, women are underrepresented in leadership roles (Eagley & Johnston, 1990). Why are women so underrepresented in leadership? Is it because their leadership styles differ from those of the men in their respective eras? In this chapter, we begin with a discussion of leadership styles and why men and women might lead differently. We follow with an examination of historical women leaders and their leadership styles through the lens of leadership theory. MODERN LEADERSHIP Most of the recent literature on managerial leadership cites two primary types of leadership: transactional and transformational (Eagley & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Ridgeway, 2001; Walumba, Wu, & Ojode, 2004). A third type—laissez-faire leadership—also appears in some of the leadership literature.


88


Transactional Leadership First we must understand the traditional view of the leadership role. Leadership roles, especially those in the workplace, have long been held by men. Therefore, it is understandable that, when seeking historical knowledge of leadership, one will focus on the study of male leaders, who tend to have had a transactional leadership style (Eagley & Carli, 2004; Eagley & Johnston, 1990; Walumba et al., 2004). Walumba and colleagues (2004) describe a traditional, or transactional, leadership style as being focused on task structure, accomplishment, and the exchanges that occur between a leader and his or her followers. The relationships between leaders and followers are defined as transactions in which the leader communicates the desired outcomes to the subordinate(s) and uses a contingent-reward system to bring about the desired behavior. Transactional leadership can be divided into three subtypes: contingent-rewards leadership, active management-by-exception leadership, and passive management-by-exception leadership. Contingentrewards leaders emphasize the relationship between rewards and effective performance. The active management-by-exception leader monitors the subordinates to prevent any deviations from the desired outcomes. Passive management-by-exception leadership is characterized by intervention when mistakes have been made by the subordinates (Walumba et al., 2004). A primary disadvantage of transactional leadership is the Skinnerian contingency itself; employees will perform well only as long as they are adequately compensated and recognized, and un-reinforced employee behaviors will dissipate. This has the added negative effect of strongly tying employee motivation to whatever the company or organization is willing to offer as a reward. By this line of reasoning, leaders will have great success as long as they have the resources to adequately compensate their subordinates, and transactional leaders with fewer resources will be less successful. This limitation in performance as a result of leadership style has great implications for less resourceful or wealthy organizations. However, it is the form of leadership that most people are familiar with, and it is arguably the most comfortable, given its long tradition. The social psychology of transactional leadership is centered on the idea of transactions—that is, interactions that are bound by a social contract between the leader and the subordinate in which the leader defines the desired outcome and its rewards. This contract does not lend itself to any negotiation between the leader and the subordinate, nor does it encourage group cooperativeness. Instead, this leadership style creates an autocratic environment in which the leader calls the shots and the subordinates race for the rewards. An individual who is competitive, self-confident, aggressive, dominant, and forceful has a


Leadership and Women

89

distinct advantage in this situation. Such an individual would be comfortable issuing demands and would thrive as an autocratic, or directive, leader (Walumba et al., 2004). What is it that makes transactional leadership ‘‘masculine’’? In an attempt to answer this question, researchers have studied three possible explanations that are not necessarily exclusive of one another: gender-role expectations, agentic versus communality, and the interaction of leadership-role expectations with gender-role expectations. We will examine each of these explanations in order. Gender-Role Expectations According to Eagley and Wood (1991), gender differences in behavior can be explained by gender-defined roles—the limitation of each gender to those traits and behaviors that society labels masculine or feminine. Societal expectations create, reinforce, and subtly change these roles over time. Gender-role conditioning for males includes encouraging competitiveness, assertion, dominance, independence, and aggression. Because men have long held leadership roles in this society, it is unsurprising that masculine, or male gender-role, characteristics have become associated with leadership. These role expectations pervade the workplace and influence behavior to various degrees, which explains why men are expected to be more directive, aggressive, and independent in the workplace. Eagley and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) demonstrated that these qualities were expressed by men more often than women, especially in terms of a desire to manage competitively and assertively. Agentic Versus Communality Men tend to be agentic in their social interactions—that is, they are more likely than women to act in their own interest and participate in a social interaction as if it were a negotiation (Walumba et al., 2004). The agentic qualities that have become associated with masculine leadership include aggression, ambition, dominance, forcefulness, independence, daring, self-confidence, and competitiveness (Eagley & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). These qualities are also reinforced by gender-role expectations in situations where communal qualities, such as concern for others, would be socially unacceptable. The Interaction of Leadership-Role Expectations and Gender-Role Expectations Forging congruence between leadership roles and gender roles is not difficult for men; after all, the agentic qualities of a good transactional leader are considered to be masculine in nature, so there is little need for © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

90


men to adjust their leadership style to be congruent with the accepted male role. Leading, especially in the managerial field, also includes role expectations of the job itself; a person in the management role is confined by what is expected from that specific role, and gender role activity may be limited by managerial role activity. Those in leadership positions, especially in organizations, have very clear behavioral guidelines, which may or may not integrate gender expectations. On the other hand, certain differences in leadership style, such as aggressiveness and competitive nature, could be explained by personality differences ingrained in the sexes through gender roles. Young boys are encouraged to be rough, rowdy, and aggressive. These personality differences, including a tendency toward agentic behavior, do not differ from transactional leadership role expectations; there is no need to adjust personality/gender differences for male leaders (Walumba et al., 2004). In summary, a transactional leadership suits the masculine social interaction and leadership style, because men internalize the male gender role, which supports an agentic desire for competition, aggression, and assertion (Walumba et al., 2004). Transactional leadership, developed alongside the male gender role because men were leading, also utilizes and rewards competition (through forcing subordinates to ‘‘compete’’ for rewards), aggression (leading in an autocratic, definitive manner), and assertion (maintaining a position of power through transactions with subordinates) (Eagley & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Ridgeway, 2001; Walumba et al.). Men are also encouraged, through gender role socialization, to make use of and strive for the agentic qualities that describe transactional leadership, and they are socially reprimanded for acting communally. Finally, transactional leadership suits the masculine social interaction style because there is no incongruence between transactional leadership and cultural masculinity. Transformational Leadership The alternative to transactional leadership is transformational leadership, which is characterized by a focus on individualized interactions, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and influencing subordinates positively (Walumba et al., 2004). Transformational leaders encourage teamwork and attempt to change their subordinates’ motives, beliefs, and capabilities to raise performance beyond self-interest or reward. Transformational leaders tend to focus on benefiting the organization and are less concerned with individual power and recognition. They are more interested in successful group dynamics. The key distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is focus: Transactional leadership focuses on the individual power of the leader, whereas transformational leadership focuses on the success of the group. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


91

Transformational leadership is thus intuitively effective for organizations of varying sizes and resources, because leaders are not restricted by the organization’s ability to provide tangible rewards. By fostering intrinsic motivation for success, as transformational leaders do, employees and followers are encouraged to perform at a higher level for the reward of group cohesiveness and the success of the group as a whole. How is transformational leadership associated with feminine qualities? We will address this notion of ‘‘feminine ¼ transformational’’ within the same framework that we associated transactional leadership with masculinity: gender role, agentic versus communality, and the interaction between leadership roles/expectations and gender roles/ expectations. Gender-Role Expectations Gender-role beliefs are both prescriptive and descriptive (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). They tell men and women how they should act in dayto-day life (descriptive) and how they will act (according to role restrictions) in certain situations (prescriptive). Eagley and Wood (1991) discuss several aspects of the stereotypical female gender role and describe gender differences that exist in several areas of social interaction, including social behavior, nonverbal communication, and groups. According to these researchers, the female role is characterized by the social roles that women have historically held—especially childrearing and domestic duties. Normative expectations for women include being friendly, expressing concern for others’ welfare, and being emotionally expressive. Agentic Versus Communality Whereas transactional leadership is associated with agentic qualities, transformational leadership is associated with communal qualities (Walumba et al., 2004). Communal characteristics include a primary concern with the welfare of others as well as affection, kindness, sympathy, nurturance, gentleness, and interpersonal sensitivity. Historically, these qualities have been used to describe women and are considered feminine qualities. For example, women more than men tend to agree with other people in group settings. This demonstrates support for the group and increases group cohesiveness (Eagley & Wood, 1991). Women are encouraged, through gender-role expectations, to behave communally. How does transformational leadership make use of these communal qualities? The ability to intrinsically motivate subordinates to succeed requires substantial ‘‘people skills’’—cooperation, interpersonal dependence, appreciation, and support for subordinates. These interpersonal © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

92


skills, along with group support and a keen understanding of nonverbal communication cues from subordinates, allow women to lead more democratically, i.e., transformationally (Eagley & Johnston, 1990; Eagley & Wood, 1991). The Interaction of Leadership-Role Expectations and Gender-Role Expectations Women face a different situation when leading others: Gender roles and expectations create women who are ‘‘nice’’; they are expected to behave communally with others, by being kind, supportive, etc. Meanwhile, traditional leadership qualities are masculine and agentic (aggressive, independent, competitive, etc.). Women are in a bind; acting agenticly is the traditional style of leadership, but women who act agenticly violate a stereotypic expectation of female gender role behavior (Rudman & Glick, 2001). There is a clear role incongruity between traditional, transactional leadership, defined by agentic behaviors and traits (Walumba et al., 2004) and behaving in a communal fashion, as women are expected to do (Rudman & Glick, 2001; Eagley & Wood, 1991). What’s a woman to do? Rudman and Glick (2001) argue that women faced with this paradox have two options: act agenticly to be considered competent for leadership roles, or act communally and be liked by their peers but not respected or considered for leadership promotions. Queen Elizabeth I, who will be discussed in more detail later, dealt with this paradox by assuming both roles. In her most famous speech to her army (Axelrod, 2000), she showed masculine (agentic) traits, but she tempers those traits by asserting that she would suffer the same fate as her troops—a distinctly feminine (communal) assertion. Yoder (2001) suggests changes that women can make to become more effective leaders. She does not describe these changes as transformational; rather, she lists them as methods to make women more effective in masculinized contents. The suggestions Yoder makes have a distinctly transformational air. First, Yoder suggests that women ‘‘camoflag[e] dominant speech acts . . . [to] effectively enact leadership dominance. . .’’ (p. 820). She also suggests women develop grouporiented, as opposed to self-oriented, management, which is a key feature of transformational leadership (Yoder; Walumba et al., 2004). Transformational leadership eases the role incongruity that women face when confronted with gender expectations (of communality) and traditional leadership expectations (of agentic behaviors) by replacing masculine leadership traits with feminine ones. Transformational leadership thus eases the role incongruity that women face when they are confronted with gender-role expectations (of communality) and © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


93

traditional leadership-role expectations (of agentic) by replacing masculine leadership traits with feminine ones. FEMALE LEADERSHIP IN A HISTORICAL CONTEXT To more fully understand the nature of modern women leaders, it is helpful to examine women leaders of the past. The women in this discussion all led in distinctive ways. We are not able, in this limited space, to provide a timeline of all women leaders, but we hope to elaborate on some of the most recognized historical female leaders, noting differences and similarities with modern leadership styles. We discuss two leaders, Joan of Arc and Theodora, who led in arguably transactional manners, and Queen Elizabeth I, who led in an interesting mix of transactional and transformational styles. It is interesting to note that, during the research phase, we were unable to identify a prominent, pre-modern female leader who appeared to lead in a purely feminine, transformational manner. Joan of Arc Leadership did not come to Joan of Arc through the conventional paths that were available in her era—i.e., birth, education, or marriage. Instead, she assumed a leadership position as her ‘‘divine right’’ by claiming to hear the voices of angels. These angels told Joan of Arc what was necessary for victory over the English during the Hundred Years’ War. By following these divine instructions and leading the French army accordingly, she was a successful military leader. However, to gain her many victories, she had to defy the male military leaders of the time and assert herself. Through her defiance, perseverance, and belief in a divine mandate, she inspired her followers to action—despite her genderincongruent behavior (Axelrod, 2003). After she was captured by the English, however, the popular sentiment toward her changed. She was imprisoned, burned at the stake for heresy—specifically, for insisting on wearing male clothing (Wirth, 2006)—and eventually canonized as a saint (Axelrod, 2003). Her claim of direct communication with God, which was the purview only of male clergy at the time, and her masculine clothing suggest that she led and behaved in a ‘‘masculine’’ manner. Her issuance of military orders is also distinctly transactional in nature; so too was the assertiveness required to see that her orders were followed. Theodora Theodora was an actress in the 6th century, when actresses worked as prostitutes or in vulgar forms of entertainment. She married the © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

94


emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Justinian, and was immediately crowned empress. In some historical accounts, Theodora is considered the dominant partner in her marriage and is thought to have had control over some of Justinian’s actions, especially regarding marriage laws. She was decisive and outspoken, according to historical legend, and acted in an ‘‘improper, masculine’’ fashion, including insisting upon being greeted as an equal with the emperor. She even insisted on having followers prostrate themselves to her. She also promoted changes in religious structure and in prostitution operations (Garland, 1999). Like Joan of Arc, Theodora appears to have led in a ‘‘masculine’’ style by being assertive, independent, and aggressive in her actions.

Queen Elizabeth I Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, was born in the 16th century into privilege and the potential for leadership. Despite this, her ascendancy was difficult because she was renounced as illegitimate because of her father’s indiscretions and divergence from Roman Catholicism. After the death of her father, Elizabeth was accused of treason and imprisoned by her half sister, Queen Mary I (daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon), who later died of cancer without having declared an heir. By default, Elizabeth became queen of England (Axelrod, 2003). Queen Elizabeth I’s subjects were especially wary when she rose to power, due in part to her sister’s bloody reign. People of the time believed that women were intellectually inferior to men and unable to lead because of their feminine temperament. Men were rulers and leaders, and that was believed to be the way of God (Axelrod, 2000). Despite these obstacles to her ascendancy, Queen Elizabeth I led England through a combination of leadership abilities and her femininity. This combination of roles, as a monarch and a woman, is exemplified in a speech she gave to her army on the eve of an invasion by the Spanish Armada (Axelrod, 2000): I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king—and of a King of England, too! . . . [that] any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms—I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

In supplication, Queen Elizabeth I acknowledges what the common man believed about the inequality of women by declaring her body to be ‘‘weak’’ and ‘‘feeble.’’ She then follows with very masculine statements, wherein she claims that she has the ‘‘heart and stomach of a king’’ and that she will be the army’s general. In essence, it seems as © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


95

though Elizabeth I feels she must first acknowledge her gender constraints on behavior and strength so that she can make such masculine statements. Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth I led with a similar mix of feminine and masculine leadership ideals. For instance, Axelrod (2000) describes a speech that Elizabeth made in front of an all-male university in which she showed respect for her subordinates by speaking in Latin, the academic language of her day. She also acknowledged the academicians’ good works and inquired what she could do as queen to support the university. These actions could be described as communal in nature because she was concentrating on acknowledging and rewarding teamwork. (Axelrod notes that successful leaders in the business world should acknowledge the talents of their subordinates, speak with them, and show support.) Queen Elizabeth I also walked with the men of the armed forces and spoke to them directly, asserting her leadership as a judge of the men’s actions. She said that she would share the fate of the soldiers, be it glory or death. These statements are distinctly agentic in that they are assertive, demanding, and finite. (Axelrod notes that leaders today need to ensure that their subordinates believe that their leader can be both a leader and a comrade.) Queen Elizabeth I also maintained her leadership power by carefully cultivating an image of herself as a Virgin Queen, much like Mary, the Blessed Virgin, in Catholicism. She perpetuated this image by never marrying and never producing an heir to the throne. Elizabeth knew that if she married a man, power would shift away from herself and onto her husband or male heir. Through this virginal image Elizabeth also united England’s Catholics and Protestants with her emphasis on piety, which further helped preserve her power. A particularly feminine aspect of Queen Elizabeth I’s leadership was her continued reliance on others: the privy, her advisors, her friends, and her family all contributed to her decisions. She believed that the key to success was evolution, not revolution. Therefore, she appointed new advisors to help the country make advancements, while retaining old and trusted advisors to maintain a sense of history and prevent revolution. Elizabeth encouraged her followers’ loyalty by showing loyalty to her country. She was also unafraid of criticizing the actions of others, although she did so without attacking personal or private faults. This tempered forwardness of reprimands is a distinct feature of her blend of communal and agentic leadership qualities. In summary, Queen Elizabeth I exhibited a more feminine, communal leadership style when interacting with her people in more private settings. As a monarch, she led in a more masculine, autocratic style, especially when the situation called for a strong hand. Perhaps it was this curious but effective combination of feminine and masculine © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

96


leadership that led to Elizabeth’s success. Her mixture of agentic and communality might well have paved the way for transformational leadership—women’s leadership—to take root. She created a climate in which femininity and leadership could coexist in one person. WHICH LEADERSHIP STYLE IS BETTER? Now that we have defined transactional and transformational leadership and associated them with masculinity and femininity, respectively, the following questions remain: Which is better? Which of these two leadership styles yields greater results? Several investigators have addressed this question with a number of different methods, which have yielded varying results (see Eagley & Johnston, 1990, for a much more comprehensive discussion of these studies). Eagley and Johnston addressed these discrepancies in a thorough meta-analysis of 162 empirical and non-empirical published reports, including non-technical books on management. The non-empirical reports seem to agree that men behave more autocratically, with hierarchal levels of power, and problem-solve with little or no emotional involvement. Women leaders, they argue, lead more democratically, with more collaboration between leaders and subordinates, and solve problems with intuition and empathy. On the other hand, the experimental research of social scientists maintains that there is no significant difference between the leadership styles of men (transactional, autocratic) and women (transformational, democratic) (Berkowitz, 1953; Butterfield & Powell, 1981; Day & Stogdill, 1972; Lee & Alvares, 1977; Rice, Instone, & Adams, 1984). Eagley and Johnston (1990) surmised that the opposing conclusions were arrived at from different methods of data gathering and processing. Writers who insisted that there is a gender-based difference in leadership style tended to base their findings on personal experience, interviews with managers, and impressions derived from different organizations. Social scientists, who argued that there is no gender difference in leadership, tended to gather data through questionnaires and laboratory observations. It is tempting, for someone with a scientific background, to discard the anecdotal evidence provided by popular writers and focus only on experimental evidence. However, both kinds of data offer valid information about possible differences in leadership style, and both should be considered. In summarizing their findings, Eagley and Johnston (1990) concluded that gender differences probably exist but that they are less pronounced in organizational settings than in laboratory or assessment studies. The strongest evidence of a gender-based difference in leadership was in the tendency for women to behave more democratically than © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


97

men and for men to behave more autocratically than women. Eagley and Johnston (1990) noted that even when female and male leaders satisfy the same selection criteria (e.g., work history, experiences, education), they might differ in personality and behavioral tendencies. Specifically, they noted that women’s interpersonal social skills would enable them to manage more democratically than men do. Foels, Driskell, Mullen, and Salas (2000) suggest that democratic leadership is more satisfying to group members than autocratic leadership is. In particular, they report that democratic leadership elicited a stronger positive affect in laboratory groups as group size increased. Furthermore, a group’s gender distribution affected satisfaction with leadership style: Predominantly male groups were more satisfied with an autocratic leader, whereas predominantly female groups were more satisfied with a democratic leader. However, the gender composition of the group was a factor only in real-world groups; all of the artificial groups reported higher satisfaction with democratic leadership. Although Foels and colleagues (2000) found greater group satisfaction with democratic leaders, they point out that these findings are limited in real-world applications and practicality. Businesses that are changing to a democratic leadership style will probably not notice any appreciable difference in productivity or worker satisfaction. These findings support Eagley and Johnston’s (1990) assertion that gender differences do exist in the workplace and influence leadership style, but only to a small degree. SUMMARY We have not entirely answered the question of which leadership style is better. In short, the answer, unfortunately, seems to be, ‘‘It depends.’’ It depends on group size, setting, goals, gender distribution, etc. There is no clear answer on the superiority of transformational leadership or transactional leadership. So what can we conclude? We may conclude that, there are distinctive styles of leadership, each leadership style seems to be gender-specific, and both leadership styles, transactional, and transformational, are effective. There is no doubt that people lead in different ways; these differences are not only individual in nature but are influenced by gender expectations. Historically, there are exceptions: Joan of Arc and Theodora both appear to have been masculine in their behavior and leadership qualities, whereas Queen Elizabeth I seems to have created an effective mix of leadership styles. However, as women have entered the workforce and have more frequently assumed leadership positions, they have discovered that the prescribed female gender role and transactional leadership are incongruent. As a result, a new form of leadership has begun to take shape. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

98


Integrating effective leadership with feminine, communal qualities has led to transformational leadership. This leadership style, which is heavily influenced by gender-role expectations, ease the incongruence between being a woman and being a leader and allow women leaders to earn the respect they deserve. Research has shown that people respond positively to transformational, democratic leaders as well as to transactional, autocratic leaders. Time will tell if one leadership style becomes significantly more effective than the other. It seems that the more important consideration is not the leader but the leadership context.

REFERENCES Axelrod, A. (2000). Elizabeth I CEO: Strategic lessons from the leader who built an empire. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press. Axelrod, A. (2003). Profiles in leadership. New York: Prentice Hall Press. Berkowitz, L. (1953). Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48 (2), 231–238. Butterfield, D. A., & Powell, G. N. (1981). Effect of group performance, leader gender, and rater gender on ratings of leader behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 28 (1), 129–141. Day, D. R., & Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology, 25 (2), 353–360. Eagley, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279–301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eagley, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 781–797. Eagley, A. H., & Johnston, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 233–256. Eagley, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining gender differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (3), 306–315. Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration. Small Group Research, 31 (6), 676–701. Garland, L. (1999). Byzantine empresses: Women and power in Byzantium A.D. 527–1204. London: Routledge. Lee, D. M., & Alvares, K. M. (1977). Effects of gender on descriptions and evaluations of supervisory behavior in a simulated industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (4), 405–410. Rice, R. W., Instone, D., & Adams, J. (1984). Leader gender, leader success, and leadership process: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1), 12–31. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 637–655. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash towards agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 743–762.



99

Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes towards female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (11), 1315–1328. Walumba, F. O., Wu, C., & Ojode, L. A. (2004). Gender and instructional outcomes: The mediating role of leadership style. Journal of Management Development, 23 (2), 124–140. Wirth, R. (Ed.). (2006). Primary sources and context concerning Joan of Arc’s male clothing. Historical Academy for Joan of Arc Studies. Available online. Yoder, J. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.


Chapter 7

Feminist Competing Values Leadership: An Investigation of the Roles Played by Men and Women Nancy Miller Frank Alan Belasen

If effective managers are more successful than less effective managers in handling novel or exceptional situations and generally exhibit greater behavioral and cognitive complexity (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Hart & Quinn, 1993), do men and women alike manifest these behaviors in their organizational leadership roles across hierarchical levels? Are there any significant differences between men and women across managerial levels? To answer these questions, we used the competing values framework (explained below) to categorize the roles that managers play and to identify gender differences. Also relevant, however, is the question of whether women actually manage in accordance with the predictions of feminist theory. Given present-day attention to feminist theories of leadership, it is appropriate to ask whether women align with traditional feminist role strengths within the competing values framework compared to men. For example, in spite of the apparent connection between transformational leadership and feminist theories of leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Barker & Young, 1994), are we correct in assuming that women in particular are more likely to demonstrate transformational behaviors? The results of a field study, though intriguing, led us to suggest that access to higher managerial levels for women remains elusive and that women frequently find themselves shifting into a state of hypereffectivity to advance their careers. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

102


In the next section we examine recent developments in research and applications. We then review feminist theories and studies relating to gender differences in leadership roles. Next, we identify the research objectives and propositions for our study, examine the results, and suggest a number of explanations for the interesting findings. We conclude the study with a discussion of the hypereffective woman. THE COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK Originated by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), the competing values framework (CVF) highlights the contradictory nature of organizational environments and the complexity of choices faced by managers when responding to competing tensions. These responses include a variety of managerial roles that differ by situation. The CVF displays the repertoire of leadership roles by aligning pairs of roles with specific organizational environments (Figure 7-1). For example, the innovator and broker roles rely on creativity and communication skills to bring about change and to acquire the resources necessary for change management. The monitor and coordinator roles are more relevant for system maintenance and integration and require project management and supervision skills. Although the director and producer roles are geared toward goal achievement, the facilitator and mentor roles are aimed at generating a motivated work force driven by commitment and involvement.

Figure 7-1.

The competing values framework. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Feminist Competing Values Leadership

103

The upper part of the framework contains transformational roles, whereas the lower part contains transactional roles (Quinn, 1988). Denison and Spreitzer (1991) pointed out that when managers overemphasize one set of values (or play certain roles extensively without considering the other roles), the organization can become dysfunctional. High-performing managers, on the other hand, display behavioral complexity that allows them to master contradictory behaviors while maintaining some measure of behavioral integrity and credibility. The concept of paradox reinforces the idea that the structure of this behavioral complexity is not neat, linear, or bipolar but must take a more complicated form (Denison et al., 1995). Support for this framework was found in a study (Buenger, Daft, Conlon, & Austin, 1996) that showed that giving priority to certain organizational environments (e.g., internal processes) might impede the accomplishment of goals in other areas (e.g., human relations). Recently, the CVF has received renewed attention from organizational researchers and leadership development scholars. Much of this attention has focused on the wide applicability of the CVF as a diagnostic and developmental tool, especially for cultural variables (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Garman, 2006; Igo & Skitmore, 2006), human resource development (Belasen & Frank, 2004; Panayotopoulou, Bourantas, & Papalexandris, 2003), and the relationships between leadership roles and management education (Belasen & Rufer, 2007). Other directions of research came from investigations that set out to modify the CVF configuration to include an additional role (Vilkinas, 2000; Vilkinas & Cartan, 2001), justification for the reordering of the CVF roles within each quadrant (Belasen & Frank, 2005; Denison et al., 1995), and variation in emphasizing particular roles depending on the situation (Hooijberg, Bullis, & Hunt, 1999). A related question is how managers actually choose appropriate roles to play and how cognitive styles, reflected in personality traits, affect these choices. The interplay of traits and leadership roles, for example, is a well-known tool for selecting individuals and matching them with organizational positions (Belasen & Frank, 2008; Dastmalchian, Lee, & Ng, 2000). An interesting question is how managers at different hierarchical levels classify their behaviors across the CVF levels. To answer this question, the results of a study of managers in a large financial institution are reported in Tables 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 (Belasen, 1998, 2000). One central finding of these surveys is that there are many striking similarities in the importance of the roles played by managers at different levels. Overall, the evidence suggests that the managers at each level were able to identify with all eight CVF roles. The results suggest that first-level managers can be classified as committed intensive. These managers place a greater emphasis on the importance of the innovator, broker, and producer roles than on all © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

104


Table 7-1. Similarities and differences in motivating employees and setting goals Level

Producer

Director

All managerial levels

. Maintains a high level of energy . Shows motivation and effort . Motivates others

. Makes important work decisions . Sets goals . Sets objectives for accomplishing goals . Defines roles and expectations for employees

First level

. Focuses on results and accomplishments . Gets others to excel in their work . Uses time and stress management . Uses strategies to handle delays and interruptions

. Assigns priorities among multiple goals

Middle level

. Creates high-performance . Garners support for goals expectations in others from managers at lower . Focuses on results and levels accomplishments . Considers individual differences in motivating employees

Top level

. Creates high-performance . Establishes a context for expectations in others decision making at lower . Considers individual differenlevels ces in motivating employees . Gets others to excel in their work

the other roles. These managers serve as the primary point of contact for providing financial products and services to business clients within the assigned market area. Committed intensives are characterized by the high intensity that they bring to their work. They are almost obsessive about personal productivity for themselves and others, to the point that they might have difficulty understanding, and even tolerating, individuals who are not willing to work as hard as they do (Quinn, 1988). The middle-level managers in the sample can be described as conceptual producers. These managers work well in developing and selling new ideas. This is consistent with the fact that these managers have a © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


105

Table 7-2. Similarities and differences in controlling work and tracking details Level

Coordinator

Monitor


. Ensures that work is going according to schedule . Reallocates resources to accommodate the needs of work units . Coordinates tasks and people

. Disseminates information about policies and procedures . Relies on reports from others and ensures the flow of information to necessary personnel and units . Sets up and maintains necessary communication channels

First level

. Anticipates work flow problems

. Oversees compliance with procedures . Plans workload adjustments as needed

Middle level

. Anticipates work flow problems . Schedules work flow of tasks and projects

. Interprets financial and statistical reports

Top level

. Determines subordinates’ assignments on the basis of individual skills and abilities . Coordinates units as well as individual employees

. Carefully reviews the work of others

higher level of formal education than first-level managers do. These individuals perceive themselves as being conceptually skilled, production-focused, effective managers even though they pay little attention to details. This is supported by evidence that the managers in our sample emphasized the high importance of the innovator, broker, producer, facilitator, and director roles at their level. The coordinator, mentor, and monitor roles were assessed to be of less importance as indicated by lower mean scores relative to the overall profile mean for middle-level management. Upper-level management appears to emphasize the external and human interaction roles. Thus, upper management appears to be characterized as open adaptive. These managers scored highly on the importance of the innovator, broker, producer, director, facilitator, and mentor roles. It was evident that upper-level managers placed less emphasis on the coordinator and monitor roles. This is consistent with research that suggests that upper-level managers spend more time dealing with the institutional environment and the well-being of the © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

106


Table 7-3. Similarities and differences in mentoring and facilitating interactions Level

Mentor

Facilitator


. Gives credit to subordinates for their work and ideas . Maintains an open, approachable, and understanding attitude toward subordinates . Takes a personal interest in employees

. Works to enhance employee participation . Creates a cohesive work climate in the organization . Creates a sense of belonging to the organization

First level

. Helps employees work toward . Fosters a sense of teamand prepare for promotion work among employees . Does on-the-job training . Facilitates and leads meetings

Middle level

. Does on-the-job training . Creates opportunities for firstline supervisors to challenge themselves

. Fosters a sense of teamwork among employees . Involves subordinates in discussions about work matters

Top level

. Advises lower level managers on how to handle difficult employee situations . Creates opportunities for lower level managers to challenge themselves

. Involves subordinates in discussions about work matters . Facilitates and leads meetings

organization as a whole and are less concerned with internal processes at the micro level. Now we will explore the questions we asked at the beginning of this chapter. FEMINIST THEORY Although indications of feminist leadership approaches appeared in early 19th-century social movements, what became known as feminist theory actually emerged in the social turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s (Rusaw, 2005). Feminism is composed of several themes, but one of the most prominent is that gender differences in behavior, cognition, and perception derive from a combination of nature and nurture, from biology and life history. We see these differences demonstrated in personalities, occupational preferences, social role identities, family role expectations, communication preferences, and approaches to interpersonal relationships. Feminism also promotes beliefs in caring and compassion for others in the form of social responsibility and social justice © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


107

Table 7-4. Similarities and differences in managing change and persuasion Level

Innovator

Broker

All managerial . Supports changes imposed . Builds coalitions and networks levels on the organization among peers . Nurtures contacts with exter- . Represents the unit to clients nal people even when disand customers agreeing with the changes First level

. Helps employees deal with . Interacts with people outside ambiguity and delay the organization . Assesses the potential impact . Presents ideas to managers of proposed changes at higher levels . Comes up with ideas for improving the organization . Assesses the potential impact of proposed changes

Middle level

. Turns problems into . Represents the unit to others opportunities in the organization . Encourages creativity among employees . Helps employees deal with ambiguity and delay . Helps subordinates see the positive aspects of changes

Top level

. Turns problems into . Represents the unit to others opportunities in the organization . Encourages creativity among employees . Personally helps individual employees adjust to changes in the organization . Exerts lateral and upward influence in the organization . Helps subordinates see the positive aspects of changes

issues (Gilligan, 1982; Helgeson, 1990). Feminist critiques of what they considered masculine models of leadership appeared throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Fine & Buzzanell, 2000; Rusaw, 2005). Historically, feminist approaches to leadership theory have roughly paralleled the growth in applications of the CVF. In addition to beliefs in fundamental differences between the genders, staunch adherence to social justice issues, and condemnation of masculine leadership models, arguably the dominant theme of © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

108


feminism is its manifest belief that male authoritarianism dominates institutions and that this authoritarianism leads to discrimination and institutional injustice (Barton, 2006; Irby, Brown, Duffy, & Trautman, 2002; Chin, 2004; Rosener, 1990). Feminist critiques of management and leadership models argue that management theories and models emphasize power and rational-legal approaches while failing to recognize differences between the genders in terms of motivation, communication styles, work preferences, cognitive styles, and managerial style strengths. Among these differences, for example, is the feminist preference for collegial decision-making approaches and for pluralistic leadership that works toward shared goals and purposes (Barker & Young, 1994). Feminist theory argues that power does not derive from hierarchy and received authority, but rather from shared experience, combined viewpoints, and joint strengths. It should not be surprising that the preponderance of feminist criticism of management theory seems to emanate from academia and the field of education, institutions dominated for centuries by male-based hierarchies (Barton, 2006; Irby et al., 2002; Fine, 2007). The literature on women and leadership often seeks to identify unique attributes that distinguish the styles of male and female leadership, suggesting that gendered leadership styles reflect the power differentials in society as a whole (Fine, 2007; Fine & Buzzanell, 2000) and that masculine qualities—such as task focus, assertiveness, authoritativeness, and lack of emotionality—are virtually synonymous with leadership within the United States and Europe (Fine & Buzzanell, 2000; Izraeli & Adler, 1994; Schein, 2001). Meanwhile, as organizations reinforce these qualities through rewards and incentives (Chin, 2004), images such as the ‘‘glass ceiling’’ and the ‘‘glass cliff’’ (Ryan, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007; Weyer, 2007) continue to reflect reality. Growing interest in transformational leadership signals a promising shift in attitudes, however. Mounting evidence that transformational leadership contributes to increased employee motivation and performance has encouraged research into the mechanisms behind its achievements (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Barker & Young, 1994; Eagley, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Rosener, 1990; Trinidad & Normore, 2005). There is new support that the success of transformational leadership can be attributed to interpersonal abilities to engender personal identification of the follower with the leader and to promote social identification with the work unit (Kark et al., 2003). The transformational leader affects the feelings of the follower, creating a positive identification with both the leader and the work unit. Ironically, this interaction is characterized by both dependence and independence: an interpersonal dependence between the leader and the follower and an empowering independence that encourages work-group identification (Kark et al., 2003). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


109

FEMINIST THEORY AND COMPETING VALUES LEADERSHIP ROLES In spite of the apparent connection between transformational leadership and feminist theories of leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Barker & Young, 1994), however, are we correct in assuming that women in particular are more likely to demonstrate transformational behaviors? To answer this question, we sought evidence in the literature that men and women demonstrate different or similar managerial styles. The argument that men and women are biologically and socially different would certainly suggest basic dispositional and personality differences between male and female managers. Research streams support the existence of basic personality differences between males and females (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999; Senykina & Linz, 2007; Xie & Whyte, 1997). For example, typically, women managers see themselves as being more agreeable while men see themselves as being agreeable at times and assertive at other times. Women often score significantly higher than men on conscientiousness and national cultures often signify this. In Russia, for example, men exhibit internal locus of control, while women were found to have external locus of control (Senykina & Linz, 2007). In an interview-based study that was specifically designed to develop leadership training programs that included a feminist perspective, the researchers (Irby et al., 2002) studied perceptions of effective leadership skills. Women were seen as giving more attention to detail, being more emotional, and being more likely to seek input from others. Men were seen as more likely to delegate detail work to others. In Prediger’s (1982) people–things dimension, women leaned more toward the people side and men leaned more toward the things (task) side (Lippa, 1998). However, although relation leadership was associated with agreeableness and task leadership was associated with openness and conscientiousness (Won, 2006), there was no support for gender differences in relationship versus task orientation (Toren, Konrad, Yoshioka, & Kashlak, 1997; Won, 2006). Although the connection of feminist themes with transformational skill-related differences between men and women seems to be well documented (Eagly et al., 2003), the relationship of feminist beliefs to the eight CVF gender roles, particularly the four people-focused roles, bears exploration. A feminist viewpoint would predict the strengths from female managers shown in Table 7-5. Unfortunately, these predictions are unsubstantiated, because research on gender differences within the CVF is scarce, the methodologies vary widely, and the results are mixed. For example, self-assessments of retail sales managers place women higher than men in mentor and broker roles (Kim & Shim, 2003); female communication and information technology managers preferred the producer role (Parker, 2004); and finally,


110


Table 7-5. Transformational and transactional roles Transformational

Feminist theme

CVF focus

Human Relations

Caring Empowering Collegial Responsive

Mentor Facilitator Broker Innovator

Transactional

Feminist theme

CVF focus

Rational Goal

Consultative Inclusive Fair Equitable

Director Producer Coordinator Monitor

Open Systems

Internal Process

360 assessments of both men and women found no significant differences in perceptions of role performance (Vilkanis, 2000). Research often focuses on how women lead while rarely examining the dispositional underpinnings that would explain why their leadership styles might differ (Fine, 2007). Style and skill theories look at how managers manage, but only recently have traits (the dispositional why) been causally connected to managerial styles (Belasen & Frank, 2008). Table 7-6 lists the causal relationships between traits and CVF roles. Because trait research reports both male and female differences but does not tie the traits to the CVF managerial role behaviors, this research provides a unique opportunity to test for male–female differences in traits and their corresponding styles. Because women are often seen as more emotional and people-oriented, it would seem that their behaviors would align closely with their basic dispositions and personality traits, consistent with the belief that women are temperamentally different from men. Belasen and Frank (2008) found direct influences of traits on managerial styles, thus indicating that gender differences in traits should correspond to gender differences in managerial styles. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS Because previous research supports women’s preferences for transformational roles, we proposed the following research questions: 1. Women would prefer the transformational CVF leadership-role quadrants: human relations and open systems.



111

Table 7-6. Traits associated with CVF roles Traits

CVF Quadrant roles

Agreeableness

Human relations Mentor Facilitator Open systems Innovator Broker Rational goal Director Producer Internal processes Coordinator Monitor

Openness to new ideas

Assertiveness

Conscientiousness

2. Women would prefer the four transformational CVF leadership roles: mentor, facilitator, broker, and innovator. 3. Trait differences would correspond to the preferred quadrant’s role differences (in accordance with Table 7-6).

A representative sample of successful mid- and upper-level managers was selected from a pool of nearly 300 managers who were participating in an online MBA program. The respondents generally represented higher levels of management within their organizations. More than half represented large organizations. Finally, they represented a wide range of experience within their present positions. The final 60-item research instrument was a consolidation of two separate instruments that assessed competing values skills and work-related personality traits, as measured by a new instrument. Our findings failed to support the proposition that women would demonstrate stronger role strengths in the four CVF transformational leadership roles of mentor, facilitator, broker, and innovator. The CVF quadrant of internal processes and its associated role, monitor, were significantly different for men and women, however. Among the explanations for the failure of our findings to support the proposition that women would display stronger scores in the transformational roles, several possibilities must be considered. First, because our sample population came from an MBA program rather than from helping or service organizations, it is possible that the women who took part in the study were not strong advocates of feminist theory. Self-selection into the business management field could indicate a subset of women who are less feminist in thinking. Second, © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

112


it is also not inconceivable that the men in our sample, because of the educated and diverse nature of its population, yielded to behaviors that were compatible with feminist theory and were more transformational in managerial styles than we might have anticipated. As suggested by Eagley et al. (2003): ‘‘Self-definitions of managers may thus reflect an integration of their managerial role and gender role, and through self-regulatory processes, these composite self-definitions influence behavior, thereby shading the discretionary aspects of managerial behavior in gender-stereotypic directions’’ (p. 572). Third, although unlikely, it is possible that the CVF roles do not correspond as strongly with transformational managerial behaviors as we might have anticipated. In fact, while Figure 7.1 shows a configuration of the transformational/transactional roles split between upper and lower parts, the women in our sample showed stronger bias toward the left side versus the right side of the CVF configuration displaying behaviors that are closely associated with the socio-technical systems (left side) more so than performance systems (right side). Operationalization of these roles might not reflect the same constructs as previous research on transformational leadership. A fourth possibility is that differences in perceptions of conscientiousness and monitoring would lead women to score themselves higher than men even when there is actually little practical difference in their behaviors (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). Finally, we must consider the possibility that differences in the nature of the sample might account for the previous failures to find a strong monitoring role for women. Ultimately, we are left with the conclusion that, despite the fact that the other three quadrants have been represented as showing distinctions between women and men in the CVF in previous studies, women have not shown internal-process quadrant strengths in previous research. This is surprising, because traits can influence CVF role behaviors and studies have shown gender differences in conscientiousness (Cavallo & Brienza, 2006a; Gelissen & de Graaf, 2006), analytical cognitive styles (Hays, Allinson, & Armstrong, 2004), and detail orientation (Irby et al., 2002). According to Costa and colleagues (2001), personality variations between the categories, compared to variations between the genders, are actually fairly small. Because variations between the genders are small, and reports of gender differences in personality rarely lead to actual differences in managerial effectiveness (Xie & Whyte, 1997), perhaps we should search elsewhere for our unexpected results. Proven, successful managers are tested and honed by experience and education. The managerial process may be viewed as evolutionary; that is, upper levels of management are populated with higher proportions of well-balanced, emotionally mature managers. Strong trait and behavioral differences, gender-related or not, are filtered out along the © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


113

way. Evidence of this leveling process is seen in the differences in role strengths at the different levels of management, as well as by Xie and Whyte (1997), who found that gender differences decreased as managerial levels increased. Indeed, Xie and White found that gender differences in personality and needs were stronger than differences in managerial attributes, indicating that although men and women might start from different dispositions and tendencies, only those individuals who adapt to (and allow themselves to be molded by) the requirements of the next level in the managerial progression will increase their chances to climb the corporate ladder. THE HYPEREFFECTIVE WOMAN Why, with so much support for the effectiveness of transformational leadership styles and the tendency of women to display these leadership styles, do we not find this in the CVF? One plausible answer lies in the need for women to demonstrate value-maximizing behaviors in areas that have been traditionally dominated by men (Irby et al., 2002). The old style of management, which was based on trade (rather than communication) relationships and which focused on short-term goals and competition among subordinates, stands in stark contrast to the transformational style generally preferred by women, with its focus on shared responsibility and distributed leadership. This style fits well with the changing environmental conditions that allow women to perform their leadership roles by using their networks of social interactions and through inclusive decision-making processes that encourage participation and ownership. Already playing the CVF roles effectively, the women in our sample seemed to shift their energy from personal, non–value-maximizing behaviors to performance-enhancing activities, thus becoming hypereffective. Belasen, Benke, DiPadova, and Fortunato (1996), who examined the reactions of middle managers to downsizing, found that managers have become hypereffective in performing their roles. The significant increase in seven of the eight roles, including the critical producer and director roles of the competing values framework, suggested that the sample of managers studied might have become not only more effective but also what the researchers labeled hypereffective. Movement toward efficiency was not conclusive, but the pattern of change in the tasks and responsibilities underlying the roles suggested a severe loss of discretionary time and an increase in the sense of powerlessness among the managers surveyed. Furthermore, the in-depth interviews conducted by the researchers supported these preliminary findings. The reason that transactional roles (e.g., director, producer, coordinator) increased was that the © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

114


managers had been working much longer and harder. Increased organizational efficiency came about only, in part, as a result of changes in work processes (reflected in part by shifting roles within the competing values framework). The larger source of productivity gain was most likely the result of the vastly increased allocation of managerial activity from personal (non–value-maximizing) activities to activities enhancing organizational effectiveness (Belasen et al., 1996). A later study of the impact of hypereffectivity led the researchers to conclude that this process is unsustainable, requiring top executives and human resources directors to pay close attention to the work context that breeds conditions of hypereffectivity and to develop possible remedies (Belasen & Frank, 2004). Reminiscent of the Hawthorne Effects and the dynamics that lead female employees to exceed expectations, it is not too uncommon to conclude that the women in our sample, wanting to demonstrate their superior skills over their male counterparts, resorted to the overemphasis of the CVF internal-process quadrant and its accompanying roles, in particular the monitor.

CONCLUSION Today’s women are emmanently qualified for executive responsibilities. Taking advantage of their strengths in interpersonal and social skills, for example, they excel in leveraging rewards power through the granting of implicit rewards, such as personal expressions of appreciation, and information power through the explicit reward distribution of information. However, access to higher managerial levels remains elusive, and women frequently find themselves shifting into a state of hypereffectivity to advance their careers. Human resource recruiters and trainers should take this risky tendency into account in their selection processes and in their design of executive development programs. Diversity is not achieved by pressuring women to overachieve in those CVF roles outside their core strengths. A more suitable approach would be to help women maximize all of their skills while simultaneously helping them learn to recognize the risks of hypereffectivity. One approach, for example, might be to help women identify potentially demanding projects and recommend that they set time limits on overly demanding job assignments to prevent possible burnout. Another approach might be to help them learn to overcome their weaker areas by leveraging their strengths or by bringing in others with compensating strengths. By focusing on continued improvement while tempering the drive for success with an astute allocation of innate strengths and energy, women can reach their full potential at the executive level.



115

REFERENCES Adler, N. (2005). Leadership journeys: The courage to enrich the world. In L. Coughlin, E. Wingard, & K. Hollihan (Eds.), Enlightened power: How women are transforming the path to leadership (pp. 3–13). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10 (2) 3–8. Barker, A. M., & Young, C. E. (1994, October). Transformational leadership: The feminist connection in postmodern organizations. Holistic Nurse Practitioner, 9 (1), 16–25. Barton, T. (2006). Feminist leadership: Building nurturing academic communities. Advancing Women in Leadership On-Line Journal, 222. Available online at http://awnettech.advancingwomen.com/awl/fall2006/barton.htm. Belasen, A. T. (1998). Paradoxes and leadership roles: Assessing and developing managerial competencies. Management Development Forum, 1 (2), 73–98. Belasen, A. T. (2000). Leading the learning organization: Communication and competencies for managing change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Belasen, A. T., Benke, M., DiPadova, L. N., & Fortunato, M. V. (1996). Downsizing and the hyper-effective manager: The shifting importance of managerial roles during organizational transformations. Human Resource Management Journal, 35 (1), 87–118. Belasen, A. T., & Frank, N. M. (2004). The perceptions of human resource managers of the shifting importance of managerial roles in downsizing organizations. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 4 (2), 144–163. Belasen, A. T., & Frank, N. M. (2005, August). Roles managers play: A deeper look at the competing values framework. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, HI. Belasen, A. T., & Frank, N. M. (2008). Competing values leadership: Quadrant roles and personality traits. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 29 (2) 127–143. Belasen, A. T. & Rufer, R. (2007). Building a competency-based MBA from the ground up: Curriculum design and program delivery. Proceedings of the Academy of Management (pp. 1–6), Philadelphia. Buenger, V., Daft, R., Conlon, E., & Austin, J. (1996). Competing values in organizations: Contextual influences and structural consequences. Organization Science, 7 (5), 557–576. Burke, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and management skills. Women in Management Review, 16 (5/6), 244–256. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2006a). Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: Emotional intelligence and leadership study. Available online at www.corpconsultinggroup.com. Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2006b). PsyD corporate consulting group. Available online at www.corpconsultinggroup.com.


116


Chin, J. L., (2004). Feminist leadership: Feminist visions and diverse voices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 1–8. Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2), 322–331. Craik, K. H., Ware, A. P., Kamp, J., & O’Reilly, C. L. (2002, June). Explorations of construct validity in a combined managerial and personality assessment programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 (2), 171. Dastmalchian, A., Lee, S., & Ng, I. (2000). The interplay between organizational and national cultures: A comparison of organizational practices in Canada and South Korea using the competing values framework. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11 (2), 388–412. Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organizational Science, 6 (5), 524–540. Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 1–21. Eagley, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797. Eagley, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569–591. Eagley, A., & Johnston, B. (1990). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. Fine, M. G. (2007). Women, collaboration, and social change: An ethics-based model of leadership. In J. L. Chin, B. L. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles (Eds.), Women and leadership: Visions and diverse voices. Boston: Blackwell. Fine, M. G., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). Walking the high wire: Leadership theorizing, daily acts, and tensions. In P. M. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 128–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Garman, A. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 755–757. Gelissen, J., & de Graaf, P. M. (2006). Social Science Research, 35 (3), 702. Mueller, G., & Plug, E. (2006). Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60 (1), 3–22. Gilligan, C. (1981). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hart, S. L. & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executive play: CEOs’ behavioral complexity and firm performance. Human Relations, 46 (5), 114–122. Hays, J., Allinson, C. W., & Armstrong, S. (2004). Intuition, women managers, and gendered stereotypes. Personnel Psychology, 33 (4), 33. Helgeson, S. (1990). Women’s way of leading. New York: Doubleday. Hooijberg, R., Bullis, C. R., & Hunt, J. G. (1999), Behavioral complexity and the development of military leadership for the twenty-first century. In J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership:



117

Transforming the twenty-first-century army and other top performing organizations (pp. 111–130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Igo, T., & Skitmore, M. (2006). Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy using the competing values framework. Construction Innovation, 6, (2), 121–139. Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Duffy, J. A., & Trautman, D. (2002). The synergistic leadership theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (4/5), 304. Izraeli, D. N., & Adler, N. (1994). Competitive frontiers: Women managers in a global economy. In N. Adler & D. N. Izraeli (Eds.), Competitive frontiers: Women managers in a global economy (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52 (3), 621. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 246–255. Kezar, A. (2002). Reconstructing static images of leadership: An application of positionality theory. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 94–109. Kim, H., & Shim, S. (2003). A gender-based approach to the understanding of leadership roles among retail managers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (3), 321. Konradt, U., & Hoch, J. (2007). Work roles and leadership functions of managers in virtual teams. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3 (2), 16–19. Lippa, R. (1998). Gender related individual differences, and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 996–1009. Panayotopoulou, L., Bourantas, D., & Papalexandris, N. (2003). Strategic human resource management and its effects on firm performance: An implementation of the competing values framework. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (4), 680–699. Parker, K. L. (2004). Leadership styles of agricultural communications and information technology managers: What does the competing values framework tell us about them? Journal of Extension, 42 (1). Available online at www.joe.org/joe/2004february/a1.shtml. Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. A. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119–125. Rusaw, C. (2005). Proposed model feminist public sector leadership. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27 (2), 385. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2007). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20 (2), 182. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 675–688.


118


Senykina, A., & Linz, S. J. (2007). Gender differences in personality and earnings: Evidence from Russia. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28 (3), 387–410. Toren, N., Konrad, A. M., Yoshioka, I., Kashlak, R. (1997). A cross-national cross-gender study of managerial task preferences and evaluation of work characteristics. Women in Management Review, 12 (6), 234. Trinidad, C., & Normore, A. H. (2005). Leadership and gender: A dangerous liaison? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26 (7/8), 574–590. Vilkanis, T. (2000). The gender factor in management: How significant others perceive effectiveness. Women in Management Review, 15 (5/6), 261. Vilkinas, T., & Cartan, G. (2001). The behavioral control room for managers: The integrator role. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22 (4), 175–185. Weyer, B. (2007). Twenty years later: Explaining the persistence of the glass ceiling for women leaders. Women in Management Review, 22 (6), 482. Won, H. (2006). Links between personalities and leadership perceptions in problem-solving groups. Social Science Journal, 43 (4), 659–672. Xie, J., & Whyte, G. (1997). Gender differences among managers and nonmanagers: An analysis of assessment data. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (3), 340.


Chapter 8

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Krystle C. Woods Nicole T. Buchanan

Bonnie enters her office building and apprehensively looks around to see if her coworker Carl has arrived. When there is no sign of him, she breathes a sigh of relief and hurries to the break room. While pouring her coffee, she suddenly feels him directly behind her, and her body goes cold. In a feigned attempt to reach for a cup, he presses against her and whispers, ‘‘Excuse me’’ with a wry smile. Bonnie grabs her coffee and hurries for the door, feeling embarrassed and humiliated, as if she were somehow responsible for Carl’s behavior. Despite Bonnie’s attempts to avoid him, Carl has found a way to corner her two or more times a week for several months. After realizing that she will have to face him in a meeting later that afternoon, she becomes increasingly ill. She can no longer concentrate on her work, and she develops a headache that requires her to leave for the rest of the day. This scene depicts workplace sexual harassment, which will be experienced by 50% of women at work (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993; Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003) and will cause a variety of negative health, work, and psychological consequences (Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000; Rospenda, Richman, Ehmke, & Zlatoper, 2005; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997). This chapter provides an overview of current theories and research on workplace sexual harassment. Legal and psychological definitions of sexual harassment, legal jurisprudence history, and the organizational antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment are reviewed. Emphasis is placed on the work, health, and psychological problems experienced by sexually harassed women and the coping


120


strategies they use. The chapter concludes with a discussion of concerns specific to minority women, directives for preventing sexual harassment in organizations, and directions for future research.

WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT? Sexual harassment has been defined as both a psychological and a legal phenomenon. Psychologically, sexual harassment is defined as unwanted gender-based comments and behaviors that are considered offensive by the people who are targeted, that exceed their available coping resources, or that threaten their well-being (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley, 1997). Three types of sexual harassment behaviors have also been identified (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995; Fitzgerald, Shullman, Bailey, Richards, Swecker, & Gold, 1988). The first is gender harassment, which includes negative, non-sexual, gender-based comments and behaviors, such as statements that women are less intelligent than men or that they cannot do certain jobs because it is ‘‘men’s work.’’ Unwanted sexual attention includes verbal and nonverbal unsolicited comments, gestures, or attempts at physical contact, such as attempts to touch or kiss someone or repeated requests for dates. Sexual coercion encompasses any job-related threats or benefits that are contingent upon compliance with sexual demands, such as a supervisor promising to promote a worker only if she is sexually cooperative, or terminate employment if she refuses. Contrapower sexual harassment is another form that may include any of the above subtypes, but involves a subordinate sexually harassing his or her superior (Rospenda, Richman, & Nawyn, 1998). Legal definitions address two forms of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo is the legal equivalent of sexual coercion; it addresses any attempt to coerce sexual interactions by threatening another’s employment. A hostile work environment is created when unwanted gender-based behaviors become sufficiently pervasive that an employee perceives the general work environment to be hostile and/or her job performance has been negatively affected (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 1980). Frequently, hostile environment charges result from behaviors that would fall under the behavioral definitions of gender harassment or unwanted sexual attention.

INFLUENTIAL COURT DECISIONS IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT JURISPRUDENCE Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) was one of the most influential cases in sexual harassment jurisprudence. This was the first U.S. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

121

Supreme Court ruling that declared that sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination and a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Determining which behaviors constitute prosecutable harassment has been an evolving process. In this first ruling, the Supreme Court held that sexual misconduct can constitute sexual harassment even when there are no tangible economic costs, thus establishing the theory that a hostile environment can constitute gender discrimination when its severity or pervasiveness creates an abusive work environment (Hogler, Frame, & Thornton, 2002). Additional cases, such as Ellison v. Brady (1991) and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993a) extended conceptualizations of a hostile environment by focusing on the subjective experience of a reasonable woman or a reasonable person. In these cases, the jurors were urged to judge the plaintiff’s experience against what a ‘‘reasonable woman would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive’’ (Ellison, p. 879) and from ‘‘the perspective of a reasonable person’s reaction to a similar environment under essentially like or similar circumstances’’ (Harris, pp. 21–22). The ‘‘reasonable woman’’ standard had important judicial and organizational ramifications. Most important, its use increased the likelihood of a court ruling in favor of the plaintiff by more than 26% (Perry, Kulik, & Bourhis, 2004). As a result, organizations found further motivation to not only set objective standards of what constitutes harassment but also to assign meaning to the subjective experience of women. WHY SEXUAL HARASSMENT OCCURS: SOCIOCULTURAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORIES Sociocultural theory asserts that sexual harassment is an extension of the general gender-role socialization process. Men are socialized and rewarded for ‘‘dominance, sexual initiative, and self-interest,’’ whereas women are socialized for ‘‘submissiveness, sexual gatekeeping,’’ and self-sacrifice (Tangri & Hayes, 1997, p. 121). These socialization processes, as well as sexual harassment, function to maintain male economic power by intimidating women in the workplace. Conversely, organizational theories that focus on gender-role ‘‘spillover’’ and organizational power and climate have also been posited. Gender-role spillover theory suggests that gendered expectations of behavior are brought into the workplace (Gutek & Morasch, 1982), making a woman’s gender more salient than her work identity. This in turn causes women to be treated differently from their male coworkers and to be exposed to sexually harassing behaviors. Such dynamics are exacerbated in male-dominated workplaces, which increases both hostility toward and sexual harassment of women who defy gendered work norms (Berhdahl, 2007; Morgan & Gruber, 2005). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

122


Formal and informal differences in men’s and women’s status and organizational power can also be used by men to sexually intimidate female workers (Cleveland & Kerst, 1993). Formal power, which includes the hierarchy of positions held within the organization and the relevance of such positions to the central mission of the organization, is usually held by men. Furthermore, men frequently have more informal power than women with comparable positions in the organization; this is created and maintained by their access to greater support from peers, mentoring, and decision-making power (DiTomaso, 1989; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). According to this theory, sexual harassment is an extension of an organizational culture that grants male workers organizational power over their female colleagues. The above theories explain the function of harassment in some cases, but not all. For example, sociocultural theory cannot account for harassment that occurs outside the workplace; gender-role spillover does not explain why some men harass and others do not; and theories of formal and informal organizational power do not fully account for the fact that women are harassed by colleagues and subordinates as well as by supervisors (Wayne, 2000). Because no one theory explains all types of sexual harassment, a comprehensive model that addresses all these layers is appropriate. THE INTEGRATED PROCESS MODEL OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS Figure 8-1 illustrates the theory that workplace sexual harassment is the result of the organizational climate and job-gender context and leads to detrimental work, mental health, and physical health outcomes (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Fitzgerald, Hulin, & Drasgow, 1995). Organizational climate refers to the degree to which an organization is tolerant of sexual harassment (e.g., harassment is modeled by superiors; harassers are not reprimanded). Jobgender context refers to the job-gender ratio of the work group and whether the job is traditionally considered a male or female occupation. A number of negative consequences of harassment have been documented, such as lowered work satisfaction, increased absenteeism, depression, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and gastrointestinal problems (Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Munson et al., 2000; O’Connell & Korabik, 2000; Schneider et al., 1997; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). Further research on the sexual harassment process has uncovered additional factors that influence the perceived severity of the experience. Women who had a history of sexual harassment or who were harassed by someone of higher status were more distressed by the sexually harassing experience (Langhout, Bergman, Cortina, Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Williams, 2005), and women who experienced interracial © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


123

Figure 8-1. The Integrated Process Model sexual harassment appraised their harassment as more severe (Woods & Buchanan, 2007). According to theories of stress and appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), subjective appraisal leads to differences in the distress level that various individuals experience in response to similar situations. Accordingly, the target’s appraisal of harassment has been found to mediate the relationship between sexual harassment and negative work, health, and psychological consequences (Langhout et al., 2005; Swan, Fitzgerald, & Magley, 1996). WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT? Experiences of sexual harassment have been linked to work-related problems for those who are targeted. Studies have found that sexually harassed women report lower job satisfaction, work productivity, and supervisor satisfaction, as well as increased absenteeism (Langhout et al., 2005; Lapierre, Spector, & Leck, 2005; O’Connell & Korabik, 2000; Stockdale, 1998). Targets have also reported higher turnover rates and lower levels of organizational commitment (Munson et al., 2000; Schneider et al., 1997). Physical and emotional distress are also common after harassment. Among sexually harassed female federal employees, reports of negative emotional and physical consequences of harassment were seen in the thousands (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board [USMSPB], 1981, 1987). Among victims of sexual harassment who sought help from the Working Women’s Institute, 63% reported negative physical symptoms, and 94% reported emotional distress (Crull, 1982). Other physical consequences of sexual harassment include appetite changes, headaches, gastrointestinal distress, and sleep disorders (Fitzgerald, Drasgow et al., 1997). Although the link between sexual harassment and negative physical health is clear, it is suspected to be a secondary effect of increased psychological distress (Fitzgerald, Drasgow et al., 1997). The negative effect of sexual harassment on mental health has also been well documented. Specifically, sexual harassment has been © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

124


associated with lower overall psychological well-being and higher rates of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow, 1999; Richman, Rospenda, Nawyn, Flaherty, Fendrich, & Drum 1999; Schneider et al., 1997; Shupe, Cortina, Ramos, Fitzgerald, & Salisbury, 2002). Some sexually harassed women also show an increased use of prescription drugs, drinking to intoxication, and escapist drinking motives (e.g., to decrease tension, escape problems, feel better, or forget painful memories or worries) (Richman, Rospenda, Flaherty, Freels, & Zlatoper, 2004). Victims of sexual harassment sometimes turn to prescription drugs and alcohol to self-medicate, which places them at increased risk for alcohol abuse or dependence and more serious psychological problems over time. These negative effects frequently persist long after the harassment has ended. For example, in a longitudinal study on the effects of harassment, Glomb and colleagues (1999) found that even after 2 years, sexual harassment was associated with lower psychological well-being, less satisfaction with life, and more posttraumatic symptoms than in women without this history. COPING WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT Coping refers to any cognitive or behavioral strategy that is used to reduce the stress of a traumatic event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) such as sexual harassment. The Lazarus and Folkman model suggests that someone who is confronted with a stressful situation will employ either problem-focused or emotion-focused coping strategies. Problemfocused strategies are attempts to manage or change the situation (e.g., reporting the incident); emotion-focused strategies are attempts to manage one’s thoughts or feelings about the event (e.g., avoiding thoughts about the event or reframing the situation in a more favorable manner). Sexual harassment researchers have built on this model to better understand the coping strategies that are frequently used by sexually harassed women (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Magley, 2002). Knapp, Faley, Ekeberg, and Dubois (1997) proposed four categories of coping methods: avoidance-denial (avoiding physical proximity with the perpetrator or avoiding any thoughts of the event); social support (relying on others for emotional support and advice; confrontationnegotiation (approaching the perpetrator directly and insisting that the harassment cease); and advocacy seeking (reporting the incident to organizational authorities). One study found that the type of coping method that is used is influenced by the characteristics of the target, the harassing event, and the culture (Cortina & Wasti, 2005). For instance, avoidance-denial coping was used more frequently by women in collectivist, patriarchal cultures. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


125

Women who experienced higher levels of unwanted sexual attention were more likely to utilize coping methods from each category. Buchanan, Settles, and Langhout (in press) found that their sample of Black women commonly used avoidance and denial, but as the harassment increased in frequency and severity, they utilized additional coping strategies, including confrontation. These findings follow Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory that coping strategies diversify as stressor severity increases and might also reflect that coping with sexual harassment is a dynamic process in which women adapt their strategies over time, depending on the strategies’ usefulness in ending the harassment (Magley, Fitzgerald, & Buchanan, 2000). Many different coping methods have been employed by harassed women, but do any methods lead to positive results? One study of African-American women serving in the U.S. armed forces found that the women who used confrontation coping had the best psychological outcomes, whereas those who used advocacy seeking (e.g., filing a complaint) experienced the worst work outcomes (Buchanan et al., in press). Although this study does provide valuable insight, more research is necessary to determine how the various methods of coping lead to positive or negative consequences. The study’s focus on African-American women does, however, begin to highlight some of the issues specific to the sexual harassment of ethnic minority women. SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND WOMEN OF COLOR Harassment has been studied in both academic and work settings, but few researchers have considered the role that race plays in these settings and its effects on sexual harassment. Theoretical and empirical work addressing the sexual harassment experiences of women of color is emerging (Adams, 1997; Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Buchanan, 2005; Buchanan & Fitzgerald, in press; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Cortina, 2004; Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002; Martin, 1994; Mecca & Rubin, 1999; Moradi & Subich, 2003; Muliawan & Kleiner, 2001; Rederstorff, Buchanan, & Settles, 2007; Texeira, 2002; Whitson, 1997; Wyatt & Reiderle, 1995; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996, 1997), but remains sparse. This body of research theorizes that factors such as being both a minority and female (double jeopardy; Beal, 1970) and sexual stereotypes influence the prevalence and type of sexual harassment experienced among minority women. Consistent with theory, empirical studies have found that the harassment experiences of ethnic minority and Caucasian women do differ in a number of ways, including higher prevalence (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998), greater severity (e.g., gender harassment versus unwanted sexual attention; Cortina et al., 1998; Nelson & Probst, 2004), and racialized content (e.g., racially sexualizing behaviors; Buchanan, © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

126


2005; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Woods & Buchanan, 2007) associated with the sexual harassment experiences of women of color. Minority women experience sexual racism (Essed, 1992) and racialized sexual harassment (Buchanan, 2005; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Texiera, 2002) as unique forms of harassment that combine race and gender simultaneously. Although much of the harassment literature has described sexual and racial harassment as distinct, actual experiences of harassment are often fused in such a way that the two forms become indistinguishable (Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Collins, 2000; Essed, 1992). Studies of Black female firefighters and police officers, Filipina women, and Latina working women offer evidence for the presence of these behaviors (Cortina et al., 2002; Welsh, Carr, MacQuarrie, & Huntley, 2006; Texiera, 2002; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996, 1997). These examples call upon sexualized stereotypes of minority women (e.g., being called ‘‘mamacita’’ or a ‘‘geisha’’) and physical features thought to vary by race (e.g., comments about a Black woman’s ‘‘large Black behind’’). Although the negative work and psychological consequences of sexual harassment have been well studied, the consequences of racialized sexual harassment are less well known. Nevertheless, the evidence asserts that it is present in a variety of institutions and can merge to target other marginalized populations, such as lesbians (Bowleg, Huang, Brooks, Black, & Burkholder, 2003; DeFour, David, Diaz, & Thompkins, 2003). SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE ORGANIZATION: PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION Independent of litigation expenses, the cost of sexual harassment for organizations is in the millions of dollars annually, in terms of absenteeism, reduced productivity, and job turnover (Faley, Knapp, Kustis, & Dubois, 1999; Sims, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2005). Given the negative work outcomes, psychological distress, and increased litigation associated with harassment, it is in the organization’s best interest to develop sexual harassment prevention methods. Employers can limit organizational liability in sexual harassment cases by using ‘‘reasonable care’’ to prevent or address incidents of harassment (Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 1998). For legal purposes, reasonable care includes creating an antiharassment policy, training employees in sexual harassment recognition and penalties, promptly investigating any charges of harassment, and taking corrective action in harassment cases (Paludi & Paludi, 2003). An antiharassment policy should include a statement of the organization’s commitment to a harassment-free environment, a legal definition of sexual harassment, and a description of disciplinary procedures for perpetrators (Levy & Paludi, 2002). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


127

Sexual harassment training involves educating employees on the antiharassment policy and providing instructions for confronting and reporting a harasser (Flynn, 1991). When such practices are enacted, they can effectively reduce harassment within an organization (Williams, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1999). Furthermore, because distress after harassment is exacerbated when the organizational response is poor (Bond, Punnett, Pyle, Cazeca, & Cooperman, 2004), effective complaint procedures decrease the likelihood of litigation and can even limit an organization’s liability if the case is litigated (Hogler et al., 2002). When harassment has not been prevented, harassment investigations should be conducted by an impartial party whose goal is to interview the target, the perpetrator, and any witnesses. Ideally, the investigator should be trained in sexual harassment policy and draft a report that is presented to an organizational panel. The panel makes a decision, and either side is allowed to appeal the ruling (Gutek, 1997). Disciplinary actions may include an organizational transfer or a requirement that the perpetrator attend sexual harassment counseling (Bell, Cycyota, & Quick, 2002). As studies of the sexual harassment process have shown, an organization’s tolerance of harassment, whether communicated formally or informally to its workers, is associated with a higher frequency of sexual harassment (Glomb et al., 1999). This suggests that proactive prevention strategies have real power. CONCLUSION Sexual harassment research has sought to define harassment, explain why it occurs, and explore the associated risk factors and outcomes. Lower job satisfaction, work productivity, and supervisor satisfaction, as well as increased absenteeism, turnover, depression, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and health problems have all been associated with sexual harassment, making it costly to the women who are targeted as well as to the organizations in which they work. Women who have been harassed use a variety of methods to cope with their experiences and continue to adapt their responses; this indicates an active intent to end their harassment, even when their responses appear to be passive, such as ignoring the behavior. Although guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment in organizations have been outlined by the courts and by researchers, the need for studies on the efficacy of these prevention programs remains. In addition, greater attention to the needs of marginalized workers, such as women of color and lesbians, who often experience double or triple jeopardy, is long overdue. Future research must begin to concentrate on these issues to provide proven solutions and a secure working environment for all working women. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

128


REFERENCES Adams, J. H. (1997). Sexual harassment and Black women: A historical perspective. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 213–224). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Beal, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The Black woman: An anthology (pp. 90–100). New York: Signet. Bell, M. P., Cycyota, C., & Quick, J. C. (2002). Affirmative defense: The prevention of sexual harassment. In D. L. Nelson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress, and health: Current research issues (pp. 191–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 425–437. Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2), 426–436. Bond, M. A., Punnett, L., Pyle, J. L., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004). Gendered work conditions, health, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 28–45. Bowleg, L., Huang, J., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003). Triple jeopardy and beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience among Black lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 87–108. Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination: The racialized sexual harassment of African American women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the company of men: Rediscovering the links between sexual harassment and male domination (pp. 294–320). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (in press). The effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Buchanan, N. T., & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women & Therapy, 25, 107–124. Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., & Langhout, R. D. (in press). Black women’s coping styles, psychological well-being, and work-related outcomes following sexual harassment. Black Women, Gender and Families. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998). Civil Rights Act, P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e 2(a) (1964). Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: An under-articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42 (1), 46–67. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Cortina, L. M. (2004). Hispanic perspectives on sexual harassment and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (5), 570–584. Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (2002). Contextualizing Latina experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 295–311. Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419–441.



129

Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. A. (2005). Profiles in coping: Responses to sexual harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (1), 182–192. Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual harassment on the job: Implications for counseling. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 539–544. Dansky, B. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1997). Effects of sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 5–28). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. DeFour, D. C., David, G., Diaz, F. J., & Thompkins, S. (2003). The interface of race, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity in understanding sexual harassment. In C. A. Paludi & M. Paludi (Eds.), Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 31–45). Westport, CT: Praeger. DiTomaso, N. (1989). Sexuality in the workplace: Discrimination and harassment. In J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff, & G. Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of organizations (pp. 71–90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex. Federal Regulations, 43, 74676–74677. Essed, P. (1992). Alternative knowledge sources in explanations of racist events. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Explaining oneself to others: Reason-giving in a social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Faley, R. H., Knapp, D. E., Kustis, G. A., & Dubois, C.L.Z. (1999). Estimating the organizational costs of sexual harassment: The case of the U.S. Army. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 461–484. 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., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–427. Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations. In G. Keita & J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 55–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5–27. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., & Gold, Y. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175. Fitzgerald, L., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117–138. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. J. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–28). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.


130


Flynn, K. (1991). Preventive medicine for sexual harassment. Personnel, 68, 17. Glomb, T. M., Munson, L. J., Hulin, C. L., Bergman, M. E., & Drasgow, F. (1999). Structural equation models of sexual harassment: Longitudinal explorations and cross-sectional generalizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 14–28. Gutek, B. A. (1997). Sexual harassment policy initiatives. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 175–184). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55–74. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993a) Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993b). Hogler, R. L., Frame, J. H., & Thornton, G. (2002). Workplace sexual harassment law: An empirical analysis of organizational justice and legal policy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 234–251. Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using metaanalysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56 (3), 607–631. Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, C.L.Z. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 22, 687–729. Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (5), 975–1007. Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155–169. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Levy, A., & Paludi, M. (2002). Workplace sexual harassment (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Magley, V. J. (2002). Coping with sexual harassment: Reconceptualizing women’s resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 930–946. Magley, V. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Buchanan, N. T. (2000, April). Assessing coping with sexual harassment over time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Martin, S. E. (1994). ‘‘Outsider within’’ the station house: The impact of race and gender on Black women police. Social Problems, 41, 383–400. Mecca, S. J., & Rubin, L. J. (1999). Definitional research on African American students and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 813–817. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2003). A concomitant examination of the relations of perceived racist and sexist events to psychological distress for African American women. Counseling Psychologist, 31, 451–469. Morgan, P., & Gruber, J. (2005). In the company of men: Rediscovering the links between sexual harassment and male domination. Boston: Northeastern University Press.



131

Muliawan, H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). African-American perception of sexual harassment. Equal Opportunities International, 20 (5–7), 53–58. Munson, L. J., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 53, 21–46. Nelson, N. L., & Probst, T. M. (2004). Multiple minority individuals: Multiplying the risk of workplace harassment and discrimination. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Ethnicity and multiracial identity (pp. 193–217). Westport, CT: Praeger. O’Connell, C. E., & Korabik, K. (2000). Sexual harassment: The relationship of personal vulnerability, work context, perpetrator status, and type of harassment to outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56 (3), 299–329. Paludi, C. A., & Paludi, M. (2003). Developing and enforcing effective policies, procedures, and training programs for educational institutions and businesses. In M. Paludi & C. A. Paludi (Eds.), Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 175–198). Westport, CT: Praeger. Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Bourhis, A. C. (2004). The reasonable woman standard: Effects on sexual harassment court decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 9–27. Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88. Rederstorff, J. C., Buchanan, N. T., & Settles, I. H. (2007). The moderating roles of race and gender role attitudes in the relationship between sexual harassment and psychological well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 50–61. Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Flaherty, J. A., Freels, S., & Zlatoper, K. (2004). Perceived organizational tolerance for workplace harassment and distress and drinking over time. Women’s Health, 40 (4), 1–23. Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, J. A., Fendrich, M., & Drum, M. L. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89 (3), 358–363. Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Ehmke, J.L.Z., & Zlatoper, K. W. (2005). Is workplace harassment hazardous to your health? Journal of Business and Psychology, 20 (1), 95–110. Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender & Society, 12, 40–60. Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401–415. Shupe, E. Cortina, L. M., Ramos, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Salisbury, J. (2002). The incidence and outcomes of sexual harassment among Hispanic and non-Hispanic White women: A comparison across levels of cultural affiliation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 298–308. Sims, C. S., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2005). The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in the military: Time-dependent modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1141–1152.


132


Stockdale, M. S. (1998). The direct and moderating influences of sexual harassment pervasiveness, coping strategies, and gender on work-related outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 521–535. Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Magley, V. J. (1996, March). So what? Why did it bother her? Factors affecting women’s perceptions of the severity of sexual harassment experiences. Paper presented at the Association for Women in Psychology, Portland, OR. Tangri, S., & Hayes, S. M. (1997). Theories of sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 112–128). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Texeira, M. T. (2002). ‘‘Who protects and serves me?’’ A case study of sexual harassment of African American women in one U.S. law enforcement agency. Gender & Society, 16, 524–545. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workforce: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). (1987). Sexual harassment in the federal government: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wayne, J. H. (2000). Disentangling the power bases of sexual harassment: Comparing gender, age and position power. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 301–325. Welsh, S., Carr, J., MacQuarrie, B., & Huntley, A. (2006). ‘‘I’m not thinking of it as sexual harassment’’: Understanding harassment across race and citizenship. Gender & Society, 20 (1), 87–107. Whitson, M. H. (1997). Sexism and sexual harassment: Concerns of African American women of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Violence Against Women, 3 (4), 382–400. Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F. & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328. Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127–162. Woods, K. C., & Buchanan, N. T. (2007).The sexual harassment of African American women: Experiences and outcomes of cross- vs. intra-racial sexual harassment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Wyatt, G. E., & Reiderle, M. (1995). The prevalence and context of sexual harassment among African American and White American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10 (3), 309–321. Yoder, J. D., & Aniakudo, P. (1996). When pranks become harassment: The case of African American and women firefighters. Sex Roles, 35, 253–270. Yoder, J. D., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). ‘‘Outsider within’’ the firehouse: Subordination and difference in the social interaction of African American women. Gender & Society, 11 (3), 324–341.


Chapter 9

Uncovering and Countering Sexual Harassment in Israel: A New Career Path Ayelet Giladi

When I wrote a paper on gender and sexual harassment (SH) in the workplace in Israel in one of my master’s degree courses at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1996, I had no idea what effect it would have on my career. This was a period of growing awareness and initiatives against SH. I chose to study the topic in Jerusalem hotels, focusing on the behavior of male guests toward chambermaids and waitress, whom I interviewed. While I was writing a chapter on the theoretical background, the question arose of whether SH occurs only in high schools, universities, and workplaces or starts earlier in the socialization process. Almost all references I found at that time related to SH in the workplace. Since then, I have been directing my attention to the roots of SH in Israeli society. In 1998, I submitted my paper on SH of young children between 4 and 7 years old, the first study in this field in Israel. At that time, I was working as a manager in the life insurance department of a large insurance company. I became hooked on discovering the roots of this phenomenon. Within a month, I decided to quit my job and devote the next few years to sociological research for a PhD dissertation on when and how SH occurs for the first time in the course of one’s life. I realized that this would make life more difficult for my family because we would have to do without my salary, but I was not aware that this decision © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

134


would lead to a challenging career with opportunities to take public action. Later that year, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) passed a law against SH. The law defines SH and sets down rules to prevent it in the workplace, including the army and the police. It aimed to restore personal respect, honor, freedom, and privacy and advance equality between the sexes. This law reinforced my feeling that speaking to young children and their educators about SH from the viewpoint of respect and equality was important. In my extensive reading, I came across the name of Dr. Susan Strauss, who was among the first to report on SH in young children. She helped me—first by giving me a great deal of moral support and telling me about methods and other material by e-mail, and later by coming to Israel and lecturing on SH to the top professional staff at the Ministry of Education. This empowered me to continue my work and made me understand how important networking is for helping women. This work connection with Susan led to a very special friendship despite the long distance between us. I could always count on Susan to give the much-needed moral support whenever I felt like a fox in the desert in my pioneering research on SH of young children. After realizing that there was no one in Israel who could help me with my specific research topic, at the Hebrew University’s recommendation, I asked Prof. Janet Moyels in London, England, who does qualitative applied sociological research on this issue in young children, to be my supervisor. To complete my thesis, I had to make the very difficult decision of being away from home for long periods, with my youngest daughter only 1 year old at the time. Looking back, it was like being infected with a virus I had to overcome. Nobody could stop me. With a great deal of help from my family—Oren, Nufar, Nir, and Tal—I managed to accomplish this innovative research project in 4 years and then go on to promote awareness of this phenomenon in Israel. Meanwhile, in 2000, Mr. Itzik Mordechai, Minister of Defense at the time, was found guilty of SH. This phenomenon became more and more widely recognized. At that time, it was still taboo to speak to children in kindergartens or primary schools about SH. At the time of this writing, Mr. Ramon, Minister of Justice, has just been found guilty of indecent acts, and the President of Israel is facing trial for rape, SH, and indecent acts with several women who worked under him. It is difficult to believe that such progress in considering petting as sexual harassment has been made so soon. Clearly, the younger generation understands the implications of the law against SH, while the older generation, especially men over 50, are still having problems with it and find it hard to change their behavior patterns. On the contrary, the younger generation, now becoming parents, does not tolerate undesirable behavior with their children and want © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Uncovering and Countering Sexual Harassment in Israel

135

them to find out how to avoid being sexually harassed. For this and other reasons, I am heading a new group, ‘‘Voice of the Child Association’’—for the prevention of sexual harassment among young children. We are working with the media to raise awareness and promote a law relating to SH in children under the age of 13 years. Last year, I started teaching a seminar on SH in young children at the Kibbutz College. The students in their fourth year of training as kindergarten teachers and teachers carry out research on this phenomenon in first- and second-grade kindergartens. I find it rewarding to teach the sensitive methodology I developed in my thesis, based on the signs appearing in a young child prior to harassing behavior of his or her friend and the expression of SH. The students are given a full set of tools for asking about SH and examining and interpreting their observations relating to sexual violence and for equipping children to avoid SH. At the end of the academic year, students submit seminar papers about their work, and, in this way, are ‘‘ambassadors’’ for this important cause. It is amazing to see the students realizing that they have been ‘‘blind’’ toward certain behaviors. This underlined for me the importance of the relation is between theory and field work for understanding the motivation behind such behavior, identifying the different stages and learning to use the various available tools. Thus, our work is highly significant and is only the beginning of a long process. During the last 4 years, it has become clear to me that I that my task is to make people aware of this new form of behavior. In my research, observing children’s games in kindergarten and the first grade of school, I found that 20% of the children had experienced SH. Although it has always been there, most educators and parents did not refer to it as SH, but rather accepted it as a curiosity among young children, which is undesirable and should be prevented—boys will be boys, etc. The next stage was to provide SH prevention tools for kindergarten and school teachers based on strategies developed by Dr. Strauss. Two prevention programs were devised, focusing on gender and equality between the sexes and referring to violence, in general, and SH, in particular: (1) for young children from kindergarten to second grade (between 4 and 8 years old) and; (2) for fifth- and sixth-grade pupils (between 11 and 13 years old). These programs are now being taught in various places in the country. We are currently seeking funding in Israel and abroad to extend this program to special-needs, Arab, Druze, Ethiopian, and Russian populations in the appropriate mother tongues. This shift in my career has led to two main directions: Specialization in this field, including teaching, lecturing and research, and taking the initiative to increase awareness of this phenomenon both in Israel and worldwide. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

136


The commitment to raise awareness of SH among children has turned to into a lifetime goal. However, pioneering a new field is accompanied by feelings of isolation, frustration, and many hurdles to cross. At the same time, if such programs had been available and implemented in kindergartens and schools years ago, many SH cases perpetrated by politician, public figures, and men in the workplace, which often make the news headlines, may have been prevented.


Chapter 10

Career Preparation Programs in High Schools: How Do Schools Ready Students for Life and Work? Beatrice Hall

It has now been more than half a century since the U.S. Supreme Court wrote its eloquent paean to public education (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954): Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.

Given the lofty personal and societal expectations for education represented in this passage, few would argue that career preparation is the first purpose for the nation to establish and maintain public schools. However, many, and indeed the Court itself, would assert that the ability to earn a respectable living is essential to the well-being of both the individual and the larger community. An association between schooling and career opportunities is justified both theoretically and experimentally. If, as some have said, education is more a journey than a destination, at this historical moment it appears that many students © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

138


in U.S. schools are making short, rough ‘‘trips’’—this at a time when much study points to the urgent need for longer, smoother ‘‘journeys’’ to prepare students for careers in a radically changed, globalized, information-driven workplace. This chapter will discuss trends regarding high school completion rates and student enrollment and persistence in postsecondary educational settings because now, more than ever, secondary and postsecondary attainment determine career choices and earnings levels. These graduation trends, like all complex social phenomena, reflect a mixture of good and bad news—for individuals, for racial groups, and for the nation. A selection of current ‘‘reform’’ policies and practices in high schools will then be discussed; these are innovations that offer some promise to make educational journeys more empowering and more useful for students’ lives and careers. Today, and for the foreseeable future, rigorous high-challenge learning will be essential to all aspects of a satisfying and productive life. EDUCATION LEVELS AND SALARY CATEGORIES The good and bad news is ‘‘told in bold’’ in Diplomas Count 2007, an annual report produced by the Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center (2007); statistics from all 50 states document the inescapable trend that decent-paying careers require increased education or training. The analysis examines the U.S. Department of Labor’s statistical data on five job classifications, or ‘‘zones,’’ and the number of workers in those zones in each state. The five job zones are defined on the basis of the education, experience, and training required to prepare for the various occupations. For example, job zones 1 and 2 call for a high school diploma or less and little in the way of training or experience. Occupations such as cashiers, taxi drivers, sheet metal workers, and bank tellers are classified as zone 1 and 2 jobs. The median income for zone 1 is $12,638, and for zone 2 it is $24,460. Zones 3, 4, and 5 generally demand substantial postsecondary education or training and typically pay more than $40,000 annually; the median for zone 5 is $59,113. Nationally, more than 76 million jobs in fields such as law, computer programming, teaching, and engineering fall into zones 3, 4, and 5 (EPE, 2007, pp. 15, 18, 20). Figures like these indicate that a person’s educational attainments can usually be accurately predicted when only his or her salary is known, and vice versa. EPE (2007) also contains survey and interview data from trade and business representatives, research groups, and college faculty. The goal of these surveys was to learn what specific kinds of learning were expected or sought by those who deal with students after high school and postsecondary training. The existence of state-level education offices makes the coordination of expectations for K–12 and higher © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Career Preparation Programs in High Schools

139

education institutions regarding student readiness somewhat more likely than a parallel coordination for highly varied businesses. Still, the high attrition rates, about 50% for community college students and about 25% at 4-year institutions (Kirst, 2004), suggest that many high school graduates who appeared ready for college were not, in fact. National and state-level reports from employer groups serve to identify at least some academic and personal skills (also called soft skills or applied skills) that business and industry seek in the people they hire. EPE (2007) summarizes several key areas that both college and business leaders identify as essential to success. In academic areas, the crucial skills include competence in reading and writing informational texts, oral communication and presentation skills, and facility with math reasoning and problem solving. There are disagreements about the significance of advanced math courses such as Algebra 2, which has been associated with college and workplace success. The soft skills that were identified as necessary but often lacking include the following: personal accountability and work ethic, ability to work with others, time management, and attendance and punctuality. If employers and colleges found these academic and personal skills deficient in large numbers of high school graduates, how much more alarming must the work readiness picture be for the 30% percent of adolescents who fail to graduate from high school? The EPE (2007) data clarify the consistent association between level of education and level of income that is our current employment reality. This is compelling information, and its main value may be to furnish a worthwhile starting point for problem-solving dialogues among schools, businesses, and civic institutions. Such dialogues should focus, with a fresh urgency, on consensus building about the content, sequence, duration, and context of the educational experiences that schools (and other institutions) provide to the nation’s young people. A one-size-fits-all formula cannot be the goal of the stakeholder recommendations to enhance current and future educational effectiveness. Rather, given our complex societal needs and various human resources, planning should identify many ‘‘right mixes’’ for empowering students to enjoy decent lives and livelihoods. Because the careers in zones 3, 4, and 5 require college and/or technical training, an examination of how high school youth have been faring in recent years, and any evident trends among different groups, can offer valuable insights about high school-to-college transitions and perseverance. COLLEGE ENROLLMENT, GRADUATION, GENDER, AND GROUP IMPLICATIONS According to the Education Trust (1999), there is positive talk about continuing education even among very young students; 88% of eighth © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

140


graders believe that they will pursue some form of postsecondary education. Furthermore, 70% of high school graduates actually go to college within 2 years of graduating. However, low-income and minority students apply to different institutions and complete their degrees at much lower rates than their White peers do. Nationally, 20% of the college-going cohort, the wealthiest and best prepared high school applicants, attend the most selective 4-year colleges (Adelman, 2001), whereas the remaining 80%, including the majority of low-income high school graduates, enroll primarily in broad-access, 2- and 4-year institutions (Fry, 2004). Getting into a college of any kind is no guarantee of completing one’s education, however. More than 40% of students who have earned at least 10 college credits do not stay on to complete a 2- or 4-year degree. About 25% of the freshmen at 4-year colleges do not return for year 2, and, at community colleges that percentage doubles (Kirst, 2004). The rates at which students persist in college long enough to obtain at least a bachelor’s degree vary greatly by race and ethnicity. The highest success rate, 49%, is for Asian and Asian-American students (Education Trust, 2001). In 2000, only 10% of Latinos and 18% of African Americans nationally had earned a college degree, whereas the figure for European Americans was 34% (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). After several decades of increasing numbers, women now constitute the majority of enrollees at both undergraduate and graduate institutions, and they obtain approximately 60% of the degrees at the associate, bachelor’s, and master’s levels. Although the proportion of White females and males attending college is fairly equal, Latino and AfricanAmerican males are underrepresented at every level (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). CAREER-TRAJECTORY IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PROGRAMS Whatever the socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic background of young people entering college is, these students join a highly gendersegregated culture. This is evident in the composition of the campus community, which, at most colleges, is an overwhelmingly female student body. However, only 20% of the full professors are female. Financial and status advantages continue for males: 72% of male professors are awarded tenure, compared to only 52% female professors; also, for more than 30 years, full-time male instructors have been paid higher salaries than their female peers (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Although many school inequities based on gender have withered under the powerful influence of the 1972 Title IX legislation, which forbids gender discrimination in any education programs receiving © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


141

federal money, imbalances apparently unrelated to student aptitudes and aspirations persist. In recent years women have been earning approximately 40% of professional degrees (Sadker, 2002), but male– female divisions in the professions are pronounced. For example, male graduates outnumber female graduates in engineering and physical sciences 2:1 (National Science Foundation, 2000). More imbalances are evident in fields such as education, nursing, psychology, and social work, where women earn 75%–90% of the degrees. Gender-based career majors are also obvious in the paucity of men in elementary education (12%), social work (14%), and library science (12%) (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Even when a woman has a college degree, she earns an average of $4,000 less annually than a man with a similar education. With or without degrees, women overwhelmingly work in low-paying occupations: More than 90% of hairdressers, secretaries, and bookkeepers are women (American Federation of Labor, 1997). In another example of gender-based contrasts in the work world, 99% of the chief executives of America’s 500 largest companies are men, but only 7% of nurses are men (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999). Both common sense and years of research attest to the influence of many complex personal, familial, and social factors that combine in countless ways to shape the academic experiences and choices of individual students. Such factors modify the results of one-size-fits-all educational ‘‘fixes.’’ However, the same research studies have identified the components of the educational experience that promote goals like academic achievement, persistence in school, and access to careers. The factors that contribute to more positive educational results for learners are the following: high student performance expectations by teachers; collaborative and inquiry-based instruction; meaningful, high-cognitivedemand curricula; and mentoring or modeling by parents or other significant adults. Given the high school dropout rates and college noncompletion data referred to earlier in this chapter, it would appear that, for approximately 33% of our nation’s young people, family and/or school experiences do not provide a critical mixture of the identified learning supports. Again, it must be emphasized that learner motivation, aptitudes, needs, and resources make an idealized model of a good education not only impossible but also undesirable. Nevertheless, the changed employment realities reported by government and industry studies suggest the loss of the decent-wage jobs that formerly allowed millions of workers with a high school diploma or less to enter and rise in the middle class. We know that high school graduates will out-earn nongraduates by more than $500,000, and college graduates will earn $1 million more, on the average, than those with only a high school diploma. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

142


Thus, while the pace of change suggests that today’s students must be educated for jobs that do not even exist yet and that those jobs will probably be in a constant state of evolution, it is inescapably clear that all students need to graduate after being schooled in the content, dispositions, and skills that will enable them to have full and satisfying lives and careers. SOME EXEMPLARY PROGRAMS This section provides a brief overview of some creative educational programs. They implicitly address the fact that the combination of diverse learner circumstances and predictions for a changing world of work means that we cannot actually know the best schooling models for all learners. We can, however, use instructional means and fashion learning communities that enhance student achievement by remedying some of the imbalances and inadequacies that have been identified as undermining children’s school experiences in particular ways or in particular communities. These programs can serve as models for other schools that are trying to improve the length and quality of education— especially for students from marginalized groups whose schooling, as the data suggest, is most negatively impacted by socioeconomic, racial, or sexual inequities. Humane Letters Requirement, Tempe Preparatory Academy Tempe, Arizona, is home to a high school that was founded on the principle that all students can be engaged by challenging academic content. The school, Tempe Preparatory Academy, is an open-enrollment charter high school that requires a daily, 2-hour liberal arts sequence for everyone in its racially mixed, middle- and lower-class student body. In the humane letters block, students grapple with reading, writing, and thinking about humanity’s enduring questions and issues, beginning with an examination of how those themes are addressed by a wide range of great writers such as William Shakespeare, Aristotle, and Henry David Thoreau (Schmoker, 2007). The intellectual work of analysis and evaluation, expressed in rigorous writing assignments and seminar-style discussions, promotes and refines the ‘‘argument literacy . . . central to being educated’’ (Graff, 2003). One indicator of the power of this humane letters immersion is that all Tempe Prep students meet the Arizona state language arts standards, which require clarity, inferencing, support of argumentation, and synthesis and evaluation, among other higher-order thinking skills. Students consistently score close to 100% on all sections of the state test battery, the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards, and their average score on the SAT is 1250 (Schmoker, 2007). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


143

Tempe Prep is enacting a school reform that could be widely imitated: curriculum planning that coordinates 4 years of engagement with high-quality texts, authentic discussion and argumentation about humanity’s great questions, and numerous persuasive writing assignments. Such scaffolded intellectual challenge provides students with hundreds of hours of critical thinking experience—relevant and engaging cognitive work in the marketplace of ideas. Career Academies In contrast to emphasizing the liberal arts as the best preparation for tomorrow’s workers, there is a growing nationwide trend to increase the number and types of career and technical courses and extend them as requirements for all students who attend what were once traditional comprehensive high schools. From this perspective, increasing careerrelated content in the secondary schools is motivating for many students because it allows them to have more choices and to specialize in subjects they associate with meaningful future employment. Thus, thousands of schools have established ‘‘career academies,’’ which permit students to major in culinary arts, forensics, medicaltechnical training, and engineering, among other subjects. In fact, Florida, which has approximately 600 career academies, recently started to have all ninth graders pick from more than 400 possible majors and take at least four career-oriented classes in high school. To provide for an exploration of various careers, the students will be allowed to change their majors. In Florida, California, South Carolina, and other states, reconceptualizing career and technical education for all students forces an evaluation of the traditional comprehensive high school curriculum and graduation requirements. The expectation of states’ school policy planners is that this structured career and vocational requirement will sharpen all students’ awareness of the interdependence of educational preparation and employment opportunities. In addition to encouraging individual students to explore careers and life-enriching experiences, several other important civic, organizational, and educational benefits may arise from changing high school course offerings and graduation requirements in ways the career academies are now modeling. For example, a school-career focus could lead to the following three improvements: closer communication between secondary-level educators and leaders in industry, the professions, and postsecondary schools to verify the appropriateness or usefulness of the high schools’ career-oriented courses; higher graduation rates as job-related courses give potential dropouts the motivation to stay in school; and increased impetus for school administrators and teachers to design challenging courses and sequences of study to © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

144


complement the variety of vocational majors that students pursue. All of these potential effects would benefit individual students and enhance the democratic character and intellectual vitality of the schools. The High School Puente Project Latinos are the largest ethnic minority in the United States, but they are the least likely to gain the personal and economic benefits associated with schooling. In 2000, approximately 34% of (non-Spanish) European Americans had earned a college degree, but only 10% of Latinos had done so (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Moreover, Latinos’ education troubles start much earlier than the college years; 33%–50% of all Latinos drop out of school and never receive a high school diploma (Rumberger & Rodriguez, 2002). Even those who do make it to grade 12 seem to be limping along academically; 88% of that group fail to achieve reading proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, 2003). The High School Puente Project—puente means ‘‘bridge’’ in Spanish—is a model of combined interventions that is designed to provide Latino youngsters with the academically rigorous and culturally nuanced supports that are necessary to turn these disturbing statistics around. Much research indicates that Latino students are negatively influenced by their parents’ low education levels and socioeconomic status. These two factors tend to limit the parents’ access to schools and their knowledge of advocacy procedures for their children’s schooling, a phenomenon often referred to as lack of social capital. Furthermore, Latino children disproportionately attend poorly resourced schools (those with few guidance counselors and weak academic programs) (Betts, Rueben, & Dannenberg, 2000). To counter these factors, Puente provides three mediating interventions: rigorous instruction in English language arts; peer and adult mentors; and early, intensive college-prep counseling for students and their parents (Gandara, 2004). The High School Puente program evolved a decade ago from a program established in California to move Latino students from 2-year to 4-year colleges. The program starts with a deep knowledge of the cultural, socioeconomic, and academic factors that influence most Latinos’ school experiences. Multiple academic remedies are enacted in 9th and 10th grades, beginning with the special training of classroom teachers to carry out demanding instruction. The students read difficult literature, including that of Latino authors, write daily in multiple genres, conduct research with multicultural sources, and create comprehensive portfolios of their best pieces—the antithesis of the skill-and-drill activities that characterize many disadvantaged students’ school assignments. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


145

A second area of intervention involves the enlistment of successful individuals from the business community and the professions who are trained by the program to mentor students. A mentor’s commitment is to maintain a relationship with a student and the student’s family, meeting with them at least monthly for a minimum of 2 years. This feature of the program counters a family’s low expectations or sense of possibilities for their children and encourages aspirations for a better life based on increased educational attainments. Puente has also tried to provide 9th graders, an age group with a very high dropout rate, with in-school guidance and community by pairing them with peer mentors from grades 11 and 12. The third distinctive component of Puente addresses the area of educational advocacy. Puente employs Latino guidance counselors to work with realistic numbers of students to ensure that the students are taking college-prep classes in the correct sequence, that the students have their academic problems addressed in a timely manner, and that the students and their families receive all necessary information to prepare for continuing the students’ education. These Latino counselors are especially helpful in mitigating the often negative results arising from the families’ lack of social capital. These school professionals offer other benefits, as well—they understand the community’s language and culture and serve as an example of Latinos who have succeeded in college. The effectiveness of the Puente interventions was investigated in a survey of 2,000 program participants and nonparticipant peers. The outcomes were significantly better for Puente students, who attended 4-year colleges at twice the rate of their non-Puente classmates (Gandara, 2002). It appears that this model points to one avenue of effective educational planning: paying attention to the specific needs and resources in a given community. Local language, culture, and talent should be regarded as strengths to be built upon rather than as differences to be overcome. The Advancement Via Individual Determination Program What about ‘‘middle performers,’’ students who attend school but do not work or learn to their potential? The Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) Center in California was started in 1980 by one determined high school teacher, Mary Catherine Swanson, who wanted to move her students to college readiness. Her focused effort to improve nonexcelling students’ access to substantive academic work evolved to become a multipart program that is now used in 2,700 middle and high schools nationally. AVID currently serves about 200,000 low-income students (Nelson, 2007). These are typically students whom teachers and guidance © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

146


counselors have identified as having the following four characteristics: the student is enrolled in undemanding or non-college-prep courses; the student’s grades are too low for admission to more difficult courses or for future college admissions; there is little or no personal or familial expectation of the student continuing in postsecondary schooling or training; and although the student is in the academic middle, he or she is perceived to have the potential for much higher achievement. AVID is designed to nurture the students’ academic potential by changing the expectation and preparation deficits that undermine school success for these youngsters. When students enroll in AVID, they commit to taking a sequence of rigorous courses to become college-eligible. To equip students to function in these high-challenge courses, AVID-trained teachers build up students’ learning skills and soft skills, such as personal organization and time management, note taking and synthesis of information, effective questioning, and group collaboration (Nelson, 2007). Other program components ensure that students will receive timely academic counseling; for example, AVID includes programs that guide 8th graders into essential gateway courses such as algebra so that they can take 4 years of advanced mathematics in high school. Peer tutors are used at both the middle and high school levels, and college student mentors trained in AVID strategies offer encouragement and remedial assistance. These younger mentors, usually from the same racial or ethnic communities as their mentees, guide the new students as their intellectual skills and stamina are increasing. The mentors also serve as accessible role models of academic achievement. Finally, special electives and after-school enrichment activities are offered to AVID students; these help maintain a peer culture that is focused on academic aspirations. The success of the combined program elements, especially for lowincome minority students, has been documented in recent studies of AVID schools and students. For example, several California-based studies (Hubbard, 1999, 2005; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996) concluded that because of AVID’s low dropout rates and structures that supported students for at least 3 years, the program was effective in enrolling a very large majority of its charges in college—students who were not likely to have enrolled otherwise. The AVID model of intervention for marginal performers appears to offer students experiences that are both personally and academically transforming—the very definition, many would say, of a good education. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Despite some fear-inducing rhetoric, such as the innuendo found the A Nation at Risk report about ‘‘falling’’ test scores leading to economic © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


147

disaster (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), American schools have been educating a very competent workforce. In 2003, the World Economic Forum declared the United States number 1 in global competitiveness, including in an area called national innovation capacity. However, American public education has always had many more goals than simply training the nation’s workforce. As Brown v. Board of Education (1954) states so directly, education is required for the functioning of our democratic society and for the success of individual lives. Therefore, it is an ongoing responsibility of our society to be vigilant, making sure that schools teach more than just ‘‘the basics.’’ Thus, the recent studies that predict dire outcomes for students who drop out of schools, or who receive inadequate services while in school, are simply more urgent reminders to do now the kind of policy analysis and program evaluation of schools that a just, democratic America is duty-bound to do. The nation’s lawmakers must debate the renewal of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and its funding. This legislation requires that all public schools be judged with a yearly assessment of ‘‘basics’’ through standardized testing. The learning and teaching consequences of 5 years of such testing must be confronted in light of the other data discussed in this chapter: the need for a more highly educated citizenry and workforce, and the fact that 33% of the nation’s youth, especially minorities, are dropping out of school. National, state, and local leaders could combine these economic, societal, and educational realities in such a way that they identify goals and affirm programs that foster both high-challenge academic curricula and career-based learning. With consensus on a few essential national goals identified by stakeholder representatives, state and local school entities should then be given the freedom and funding to enact educational models that address the needs of their students and draw on the resources of their communities. Accountability for good stewardship and school improvement would, of course, be required, but one-size-fits-all testing should be eschewed because it is both pragmatically and psychometrically bad practice. Progress in engaging and retaining all students, improving communication skills, advancing problem-solving ability and critical thinking, improving responsibility and work habits, and other academic and career-related educational outcomes cannot be determined by ‘‘basics’’ tests; rather, they require a variety of authentic assessments administered over time. There is much work to be done to correct some of the unintended consequences of recent, test-driven accountability movements. Recalling the old adage that ‘‘what gets tested is what gets taught’’ might spur government leaders and policy makers to permit education professionals to align assessment with instructional goals. The complex behaviors, dispositions, and skills that are desirable for tomorrow’s © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

148


learners cannot be rated by inexpensive standardized tests. Artifacts such as extended writing and student research projects and models, performances such as debates and oral presentations, and cooperative learning experiences all demand ongoing, situated evaluation by a trained educator. Although the importance and complexity of assessment merits an examination beyond the focus and purpose of this chapter, these brief remarks about changes in assessment and accountability measures are made here because the role of high-stakes assessment in shaping what is emphasized in schools is so significant that failure to align the assessments of the future with the revised educational goals of the future will doom the effort to boost life and career skills. For a majority of students, America’s schools are performing at least adequately, and many schools can build on what they already do well to improve teaching and learning in their local settings. The recommendations described below are presented as broad descriptions of ways to change aspects of the curricula, services, or teaching in the nation’s traditional middle and high schools. The research suggests that these changes, singly or in combinations, can bring about many of the goals identified by parents, postsecondary educators, business and industry spokespersons, and the students themselves. There is much evidence that the intellectual depth and personal skills and dispositions that American citizens desire for themselves and their children are the very same qualities that are essential for success in one’s work. Increase the number of guidance counselors and change their responsibilities. The role of guidance counselors seems more vital than ever, both for retaining students in school and giving them appropriate academic advice as they plan for careers or continuing education. Currently, guidance counselors work mostly in high schools and have 800–1,000 advisees. This is a situation of too many, too late. It is in middle school that youngsters and their families need direction from guidance counselors, because so many children become disaffected with school at that stage and because many high school alternatives depend on preparation courses in the middle grades. Therefore, it would be a great support to students and to their families if middle schools had guidance counselors working in a coordinated way with their colleagues in the secondary schools. Advisee numbers should be drastically reduced to approximately 33% of the current assignment. This manageable caseload would allow the counselors to make their expertise and knowledge much more available to neglected stakeholders. In this proposed model, every year counselors would set up workshops or seminars to provide the parents, peers, and teachers of their charges with up-to-date information on career paths, college entry requirements, apprenticeships, scholarships, and other planning fundamentals. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


149

This broadening of the guidance dialogue is a wise use of relationships and resources, because these three groups—parents, peers, and teachers—have been shown to exert great influence on youngsters’ aspirations and self-efficacy, and the positive effects of home and school collaboration has long been established (Cummins, 1986; Herr, 1996; Kush & Cochran, 1993). Several of the models of intervention described in this chapter highlight the benefits for students of explicitly expressed high expectations from their parents, teachers, and peers (Brown & Krane, 2000). Provide students with mentors and models. Teachers and parents regularly hear students complain that they ‘‘don’t know why [they] have to learn this stuff.’’ Numerous studies, including a survey of recent dropouts (Gates Foundation, 2006), capture the failure of schools to make clear, or the inability of students to accept, the relevance of what schools require to be studied. The most frequently cited reason for leaving school (47% of respondents) was that the students were bored, and the majority admitted to not being motivated or working hard. When pressed for what would have helped them remain in school, 81% said ‘‘real-world learning,’’ and many recommended that schools have some adults to whom students could talk about personal issues. It is clear that much learning is based on imitation of models, and in the large and diverse secondary schools that many students attend, it is very likely that specific efforts must be made to ensure that students are given access to appropriate models and mentors. Starting in middle school and continuing throughout their schooling, students should have the regular experience of diverse role models. Through guest presenters, job shadowing, career fairs, working internships, and service project assignments, students can have real-world encounters with successful individuals of different races, ages, and sexes who can speak directly to the need for a given kind of knowledge, skill, or work habit. Such modeling complements well-explained and thoughtfully orchestrated classroom instruction. Some schools have tapped volunteer mentors and trained them to give students long-term connections with accessible models who are matched with the students’ gender or race. It is well documented that these real-world experiences counter stereotypical thinking, such as the notion that science is a White male field, and they can inspire aspirations that the student would otherwise have considered ‘‘not for someone like me’’ (Beane, 1985; Hill, Pettus, & Hedin, 1990; Malcolm, 1990). Institute a more flexible schedule for the school day. Instead of nine 45minute classes, blocks of time that are flexibly alternated with some longer and some shorter periods could allow in-depth work, such as full science laboratory experiments and extended opportunities to draft and revise writing pieces, as well as provide for briefer activities. Although students would take fewer classes in such a schedule, its © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

150


flexibility would offer support for teachers’ and guidance counselors’ efforts to make concrete connections between schoolwork and careers, because there would be time to plan for visiting ‘‘teachers’’ from the professions to present units in academic classes. Time blocks could be realistically coordinated for cross-disciplinary field trips to natural and business sites, and job shadowing or internships could more easily become aspects of academic programs as fewer courses are ‘‘interrupted’’ by the student’s off-campus interning opportunity. These are but a few of the possible benefits of using the school clock to promote high-level student thinking, real-world and school interactions, and more individualized opportunities for students to study content and careers in some depth. Teach and require ample practice of soft skills. Many educators have been decrying the resurgence of skill-and-drill instruction, which is believed to be driven by NCLB’s high-stakes testing of math and reading basics. Ideally, schools should limit the amount of such instruction because it calls for lower-order recall thinking. Conversely, when students must brainstorm, present research, peer-teach, give feedback on written drafts, and carry out assigned parts of team-based cooperative projects, learning is necessarily active rather than rote. These types of instructional activities also require the students to learn and use the soft skills of collaboration, negotiation, multiple perspectives, oral communication, and interdependence, among others. These skills should be taught in the enactment of, and are necessary to sustain, assignments such as researching the proportions of the different food groups served in a given week in the cafeteria or discussing the possible motivations of different characters in a work of fiction. Communicating and problem solving among individuals with different points of view are essential interpersonal skills and require clear and flexible thinking. Teachers can also explicitly teach students to be self-reflective. When teachers and mentors provide modeling and selfevaluation opportunities, students can be led to meta-cognitive analyses of their work habits, team contributions, content knowledge, and use of resources. These are but a few of the soft skills that support the daily essential tasks of learners, workers, neighbors, and citizens. Clearly, the mission of our public schools is multifocal. The heightened realization of the economic value of K–12 schooling and postsecondary attainment discussed in this chapter should not be interpreted as an invitation to redefine education as job training. Nevertheless, the associations among individual aptitudes, appropriate work preparation, and successful employment experiences are inescapable. Therefore, the primary duty of the nation’s schools—to educate students for full lives as good citizens in a vibrant democracy—must also include educating successful workers. Indeed, we cannot do one without the other. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.


151

REFERENCES Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Adelman, C. (2001). Putting on the glitz. Connection: New England’s Journal of Higher Education, 53 (3), 24–30. American Federation of Labor. (1997). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. Washington, DC: Author. Beane, D. B. (1985). Mathematics and science: Critical filters for the future of minority students. Washington, DC: American University. Betts, J., Rueben, J., & Dannenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute. Brown, S. D., & Krane, N.E.R. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 9–36. Editorial Projects in Education (EPE). (2007). Diplomas count 2007: Ready for what? Preparing students for college, careers, and life after high School. Bethesda, MD: Education Week. Education Trust. (1999, Fall). Ticket to nowhere. Washington, DC: Author. Education Trust. (2001, Winter). Youth at the crossroads. Washington, DC: Author. Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Gandara, P. (2002). A study of high school Puente: What we have learned about preparing Latino youth for post-secondary education. Educational Policy, 16, 474–495. Gandara, P. (2004). Building bridges to college. Educational Leadership, 62, 56–60. Gates Foundation. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Available online at www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/The Silent Epidemic3-06Final.pdf. Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven: Yale University Press. Herr, E. L. (1996). Perspectives on ecological context, social policy, and career guidance. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322–340. Hill, O. W., Pettus, W. C., & Hedin, B. A. (1990). Three studies of factors affecting the attitudes of Blacks and females toward the pursuit of science and science-related careers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 289–314. Hubbard, L. (1999). College aspirations among low-income African-American high school students: Gendered strategies for success. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 213–226. Hubbard, L. (2005). The role of gender in academic achievement. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 605–623. Kirst, M. W. (2004). The high school/college disconnect. Educational Leadership, 51–55.


152


Kush, K., & Cochran, L. (1993). Enhancing a sense of agency through career planning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 434–439. Malcolm, S. M. (1990). Reclaiming our past. Journal of Negro Education, 59 (3), 246–259. Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author. National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, J. (2007). AVIDly seeking success. Educational Leadership, 64, 72–74. Rumberger, R., & Rodriguez, G. (2002). Chicano dropouts: An update of research and policy issues. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success (pp. 114–146). New York: Palmer Press. Sadker, D. (2002). An educator’s primer on the gender war. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 235–240, 244. Schmoker, M. (2007). Reading, writing, and thinking for all. Educational Leadership, 64, 63–66. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999). The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Educational Statistics. (2001). The condition of education, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Educational Statistics. (2003). The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999). Employed persons by detailed occupation, gender, race, and Hispanic origin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


Chapter 11

Shifting the Load: Personality Factors and Women in the Workplace Jennifer L. Martin

I know I have no problem in the area of ‘‘too sexy,’’ ‘‘too busty,’’ or distractingly beautiful, but it is clear that for any woman, of any age or condition, being female is something to compensate for. —Barbara Ehrenreich (2005, p. 105). It is important that a woman find her own voice and that she discover ways of projecting it into the universe. A woman must learn how to express her views clearly and firmly without being afraid that this will offend, fatally injure, or drive her intimates away. —Phyllis Chesler (2001, p. 479)

Despite the occupational gains women have made in the past 50 years, women have still not achieved true equity within the workplace for a variety of reasons, one of which is the disconnect between the ways in which people view women and the ways in which women view themselves. Socially prescribed gender roles can lead to unrealistic expectations for both sexes, which often results in the essentializing of the sexes. As Chesler’s words above advise, women must see past these limitations and strive for success, which often involves taking risks, to achieve workplace equity. In this chapter I will examine these and other factors that prohibit equity in the workplace for women, and I will propose potential solutions. Psychologists and biologists agree that biological sex is separate and distinct from gender, which is a complex system of socially prescribed traits that sometimes, but not always, correspond to biological sex. This correspondence is more a matter of culture than of biology. However,


154


traits such as agency and communion (and behaviors corresponding to these traits) are often stereotypically defined as gender-related and thus inseparable from biology, according to many scholars (Abele, 2003). Culture, history, and the family all dictate gender stereotypes. What is deemed ‘‘appropriate’’ behavior for women and men influences individual self-concepts and personal expectations for the self related to gender. These factors, which later become personality traits, affect both women and men. Specifically, women’s adherence to stereotyped traits (or failure to adhere to stereotyped traits) not only affects their career advancement but also their personalities and how they are perceived by others. The percentage of women in management positions has risen from 15% in 1970 to 63% in 1995. However, despite this figure, women hold middle management positions only 6% of the time, and only 1.3% of women hold corporate officer positions in Fortune 500 companies. Not only do women expect less for themselves, others expect less for them. For example, the percentage of women in the workforce has increased by almost 50% from the 1970s to the 1980s; however, this figure does not correspond to positions of power, such as positions of management, supervision, and leadership (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Perhaps the most telling facet of women’s success in the workplace, or lack thereof, is this psychological precept: Observers perceive that the abilities, attributes, and personality factors that enable a person to succeed in a particular activity are somehow ‘‘natural’’ to that person (or group of people) (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Thus, when women are absent from top positions of power and authority, society deems it to be a natural problem with women, that something within them is missing that would enable them to be good leaders. There are several theories to explain this phenomenon. Trait theory (or the person-centered view) (Crampton & Mishra, 1999) posits that women have not been granted access to top levels of management because of factors that are inherent to the feminine gender; that is, certain traits that women generally possess, or are assumed to possess, prohibit them from gaining promotions. For example, women have traditionally been perceived as more emotional and less rational; this belief can influence promotions for women. What are still considered to be masculine traits are valued more than stereotypically feminine traits in American society. Furthermore, if a woman possesses a stereotypically masculine trait, like aggressiveness, or even assertiveness, it is often looked upon negatively by others, whereas for a male it is viewed as positive in many instances. If women are assertive, they are often deemed ‘‘aggressive’’ and thus viewed negatively. However, the very same behavior exhibited by men is perfectly acceptable. Corresponding to trait theory (or the person-centered view) is the socialization of women, which influences gender differentiation in © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

155

personality characteristics and values. For example, women are often socialized to value other things before career advancement, such as home and family. Even if women do not hold these values as primary, they are often perceived as holding these values by corporations who do not want people in positions of authority who do not hold career as their main priority. To complicate this situation, women who do not hold these ‘‘traditionally feminine realms’’ sacred, as society deems they should, may be harshly judged by this ‘‘failure of femininity.’’ Women are still, to a certain extent, expected to value children and taking care of the home and family as a priority, and if they deviate from this convention they are often viewed with derision. Women are, to this day, ‘‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t.’’ The ‘‘plaster versus plasticity’’ debate deals with whether gender traits are malleable and can be altered in adulthood (plasticity). The majority of research supports the ‘‘plaster’’ view (Kirchmeyer, 2002). In other words, socialization of the gender into gendered roles contributes to personality development and dictates how many people ‘‘perform gender’’ for life. Kirchmeyer (2002) argues that gender has more to do with career choices than sex does. Thus, the ways in which people are raised in terms of gender socialization is a greater predictor of career choice than biological gender is. According to Goodman, Fields, and Blum (2003), women and men possess similar career aspirations and values, which suggests that women’s lack of prominence in positions of power must be explained by barriers to workplace advancement. Some scholars argue that women’s lack of aspirations and role conflict concerning their families lead to limited opportunities (Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia, & Vanneman, 2001). Another aspect of the socialization process that women have to face compromises with aspirations and personal expectations: Women are often socialized to have lower expectations for leadership or management positions (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). In other words, women often feel less entitled to access these types of power. The factors contributing to these lowered expectations are a lack of role models, the potential impact of career advancement on family life, role conflict, societal discouragement, and a lack of female networks. Research suggests that no direct relationship exists between gender and job satisfaction (Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). Socialization has more to do with career choice and success than biological gender does. Although women are moving into the workforce and into traditionally male-dominated professions in increasing numbers, the converse is not true. Men are not moving into traditionally female professions. The reason for this could be that what is considered to be ‘‘women’s work’’ is not as valued by society as what is considered to be ‘‘men’s work.’’ Whatever the reason, women and men still differ in occupational © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

156


choices. According to Gati, Givon, and Osipow (1995), ‘‘Women’s preferences and perceptions . . . may reflect their multiple life demands, which include the responsibility for taking care of home and family needs in addition to their work role’’ (p. 214). Research suggests that women have not achieved workplace equity, in either pay or position, in part because of the expectations for their gender. Some critics and observers who are unwilling to face the depth of this issue ask, ‘‘Why can’t women simply rise above the negative expectations of them that still linger within the culture and pull themselves up by their bootstraps?’’ The answer to this question, in part, might be that women are still raised with these negative expectations and sometimes still believe them. Limiting gender expectations still affect women. The truth is that there is no simple answer here. BACKGROUND: IDENTITY, COMPENSATION, AND MINORITY STATUS Identity development and formation, as described by Erikson (1968), is used as a paradigm for successful growth to adulthood. However, identity and human development paradigms were often based upon male models, in which the male became the standard of a human being. Thus, women were often viewed as deficient because societal expectations limited them from achieving certain levels of advancement. Life-cycle theories are inadequate in conveying the experiences of women and minorities; similar developmental tasks are completed, but at different points in the life cycle (Kerka, 1991). Kerka (1993) also cautions against the ‘‘essentialization’’ of women and men. Some researchers (Gilligan, 1982) have called for a separate approach to viewing women, suggesting that women have ‘‘different ways of knowing.’’ Kerka (1993) warns that focusing on the differences rather than the similarities between women and men can be dangerous. Instead, validating a variety of types of thinking can help different perspectives to be valued instead of just one (read: male). Women are socialized to focus on relationships and intimacy; because of this, women’s careers often do not follow a traditional or linear pattern (as is common for men). Homemakers differ from women who are not homemakers by having needs at both the high end and the low end of Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs (Brown, Eisenberg, & Sawilowsky, 1997). Erikson (1959) has argued that work and work roles play an important part in identity construction. Career momentum has much to do with identity formation and thus with self-esteem; for example, women with high career momentum have more opportunity to achieve workplace success and thus tend to have more self-confidence, higher self-esteem, and a heightened sense of independence (Roberts & Friend, 1998). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

157

Expectations of success have much to do with the actual workforce success of women. Women in nontraditional fields experience more self-efficacy and feelings of success than do women in traditional fields. Moreover, women in traditionally female occupations tend to exhibit less motivation for leadership positions and less ambition in general than women in traditionally male fields (Brown et al., 1997). Women historically have been linked to careers that deal with the health and education of children, such as child care and teaching; women who seek employment are often channeled into these occupations (Ranck, 1999). Because these fields are female-dominated, they receive less status and possess the characteristics of low status occupations, such as low salaries, limited benefits, and limited opportunities for advancement. The historical relationship between mother and child, the belief that a woman is inherently maternal (the maternal instinct), and the notion that child care is her natural role and responsibility foster the idea that the care and education of children is the primary responsibility of women. Because these things are associated with women, they are viewed as simple; thus, societal resources, time and money, are not allocated to them. Ranck (1999) indicates that 77% of women are situated in female-dominated occupations. As Ferguson (1984) states, ‘‘The most common types of employment for women outside the home—the pink collar jobs, the service occupations, and the ‘helping’ professions—may involve women in outside activities, but they also further reinforce the conventional role’’ (p. 97). In the corporate world, women do not fare much better in terms of reaching economic equity. Only 2.5% of the highest earners in Fortune 500 companies are women. Women also infrequently appear on corporate boards and are underrepresented in business education (Bierma, 1999). Despite women’s better performance in college, upon graduating they make only 80% of what men make, and this figure drops to 69% of men’s earnings 10 years after graduation. Furthermore, the wage gap between women and men is widening for recent female graduates. These figures are lower for women than they were 10 years ago, and even lower for women of color (Oliver, 2007). The work world does not value women’s work on an equal basis to that of men’s. This fact transfers to the personal level as well. Many women do not value themselves and their own labor power as much as they value men’s. Major, McFarlin, and Gagnon (1984) found that when women are asked to ascribe monetary value to themselves and others, they consistently pay themselves less. In fact, women pay themselves less than they pay men for the same amount of work (Shinew & Arnold, 1998). These findings reveal two core issues that affect women in the workplace: personal entitlement and self-worth. Women often do not feel © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

158


entitled to power and monetary rewards on a level equal to men, perhaps because society tells them that they are less valuable and so is their labor. This contributes to a negative self-worth that can exist on a subconscious level. Both factors contribute to a vicious cycle in which women do not value their labor or feel entitled to advancement, which then contributes to not becoming personally invested in occupations, and it certainly contributes to women’s failure to take occupational risks that would promote their advancement. Ferguson (1984) states the following: The distortion of powerlessness affects women’s deepest psychic structures and cannot be dismissed as artificial externalities confining the real person. We would not object so strenuously to oppression if it did not in part accomplish that which it is intended to do, to elicit the complicity of the oppressed in their oppression and to produce subjects appropriately readied for subordination. (p. 94)

To suggest that women are complicit in their own oppression is not to blame the victim but to suggest that all of us are somewhat complicit in going along with the status quo. The oppression of women is not simply the problem of women in general or of individual women because they do not try hard enough. The inequities that women face in career advancement and in compensation falls upon patriarchy, culture, and socialization. These things cannot be altered overnight. According to Shinew and Arnold (1998), women tend, more than men, to put other things ahead of work. In sum, researchers and commentators have suggested that the pay disparity between women and men could be caused by employers viewing women as ‘‘quitters’’ because they might take time off for childbirth and child rearing. New opportunities and additional responsibilities, such as trainings, promotions, and positions of leadership or management, are not assigned to women for fear that they will quit to marry, raise children, or follow their husbands in their careers (Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1996). Women and minorities continue to face more obstacles than males and Whites in career advancement and pay. The reasons for this are biased evaluation processes, attribution displacement (i.e., attributing some characteristics to people’s personalities and others to luck—most often, attributing characteristics positively to the group most like oneself), discrimination, and lack of networking opportunities and mentors (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Shih (2006) found that workplace inequity for women and minorities stems from three factors: gender and ethnic stereotyping, organizational segregation, and exclusion from information-networking or mentoring relationships. Moreover, organizations can do a lot to prevent advancement based on gender and race. Shih found that women and © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

159

minorities are often channeled into lower career tracks, resulting in ‘‘intra-organizational job segregation’’ (p. 180). These individuals then receive fewer opportunities for job training or differential (read: skilled) training and thus fewer opportunities for advancement or transference from the ‘‘de-skilled’’ track. Finally, Shih found that informal networking groups and mentoring relationships prevent women and minorities from advancing because of informal exclusion from these groups. Women and minorities are seen as ‘‘outsiders’’ within the (White-male majority) culture of the organization. When women are the minority in an organization (or have token status), they are likely to experience the following: anxiety and stress, alienation and isolation, and sexual harassment. They might also have less of a commitment to the work environment because of these factors (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004). As the size of a minority group increases, however, stress is reduced. In addition, as the numbers increase, more support networks can be formed (Dreher, 2003). Although women are often divided by race and socioeconomic status, all women still face stereotypes particular to gender and sex. As Ferguson (1984) states, ‘‘Divided by lines of class, race, ethnicity, and so on, most of us nonetheless encounter a characteristic set of linguistic and institutional practices constitutive of the life experiences of the second sex’’ (pp. 158–159). In other words, although women can be divided by race, ethnicity, and income level, they still often share some experiences that could be used to unite them. Intersectionality, or interlocking oppressions, has an effect on career advancement and success, and it can produce low self-esteem. For example, Thompson and Keith (2001) found that dark-skinned women with low incomes often have low levels of self-esteem. When people possess more than one minority status simultaneously, it can contribute to further oppression and discrimination. Some women face the ‘‘triple oppression’’ of class, race, and gender, which can affect career opportunity and advancement. Minority status is complicated when members of a particular ethnic group discriminate against one another through ‘‘colorism,’’ giving preferential treatment based on the shade of the skin. Colorism has a stronger effect on women than on men. Gonzalez-Figueroa and Young (2005), in a study of professional Latinas, found that they felt marginalized from their professional group as well as from their social and ethnic group, which increased stress and loneliness. Latinas were also found to earn less than Latinos and less than other women in the same professions. Hite and McDonald (2003) found that White women have lower career aspirations than Black women. Among college women, these researchers found that women who desired to enter traditionally maleoriented fields had higher career aspirations than did women who planned to enter traditionally female work. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

160


The largest minority group in the United States is individuals who have disabilities, and there are more women than men within this group. Poverty is a common consequence for individuals with disabilities; there are more disabled women than men living in poverty. Women with disabilities often face harsher scrutiny than women without disabilities. They are often viewed as helpless, childlike, and incompetent (Noonan, Gallor, & Hensler-McGinnis, 2004). Brown and Barbosa (2001) examined the factors that affect lowincome women in achieving self-sufficiency. These include low selfesteem, unhealthy relationships with men, lack of family and peer support, lack of training, criminal history, and fear of success. There are things that women can do today to bring about small changes around them. First, they can become aware of these real oppressions. Second, they can raise the awareness of others and attempt to battle the status quo. Battling the status quo might mean creating women-centered support networks, mentoring, and assisting other women. Third, women must include women of various ethnic and racial groups and income levels in these networks. Fourth, women can try to develop a strong sense of self-efficacy despite the oppressions that constrain them. Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1995), is the belief that one can master situations and control events. If a woman attempts to master her life, despite the oppressions that are often beyond her control, then she might not internalize a lack of advancement and pay disparity—thus putting an end to the vicious circle. Finally, if the open discussion of salaries were more socially acceptable, it would not be a secret how much money people make. Women would know how much their coworkers were making and how much to negotiate for themselves, as opposed to simply accepting what they are offered. Women can work toward this end as well.

GENDER-ROLE SOCIALIZATION AND GENDER STEREOTYPES Ferguson (1984) writes the following: Even in the best of circumstances, women have tended to lack the sense of competence that comes from being able and entitled to act, to do, in the larger public world of strangers, and to have one’s projects and actions valued in the public currency. Their condition of powerlessness has been closely bound up in their role as caretaker, so that the latter is distorted by the former. (p. 26)

Stereotypes within the corporate and employment worlds often hinder women’s advancement (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Women are thought to be not as tough as men; women are thought to lack commitment to their employment, for they might leave to raise children or © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

161

have babies; it is assumed that women cannot work long hours because of household responsibilities; women are thought to lack judgment in making difficult decisions or in a high-stress situation. The prevailing feminine stereotypes promote the idea that all women are nurturing, soft, caring, emotional, and communal. Midgley and Abrams (1974) indicate that societal expectations and stereotypes have had negative effects on women’s motivation. Fear of success in women was first attributed to the anxiety caused in women by competition with males. Women must fight these stereotypes to compete and succeed. In general, men advance further, more quickly, and with higher compensation than women do (Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). Men are socialized to take on leadership roles more often than women are. Women are socialized to care about relationships, which is not a trait that is necessarily valued in the realm of leadership and management. Thus, women are thought to be incapable of leadership roles, or at least not as capable as men are. Society still prescribes roles that are deemed ‘‘natural’’ for women and for men. What becomes associated with women is then devalued (Kerka, 1993). Because women and men are still socialized differently, including the tendency to value different things, women’s workplace experiences continue to be very different from men’s. Gender stereotyping can lead to gender discrimination. No matter what the cause, gender discrimination is still a major problem for women in the workplace and in academe (Carr, Szalacha, Barnett, Caswell, & Inui, 2003). To be successful, women have to overcome more obstacles in a variety of areas simply by virtue of their gender. This fact is often compounded by racial, socioeconomic, and heterosexist biases as well. Despite the fact that ‘‘gender, like culture, is a human production that depends on everyone constantly ‘doing gender’’’ (Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow, 2001, p. 3), people do not usually view gender as a construction. Many view gender as a ‘‘naturally’’ occurring system in which behavioral roles are determined on the basis of biology and are thus immutable. Gender socialization theory posits that gender differences in career attributes stem from stereotypes, which are handed down through socialization. Women and men unknowingly accept these traditional norms, values, expectations, and roles as ‘‘normal,’’ natural, and ‘‘their own’’ (Konrad, Yang, Goldberg, & Sullivan, 2005). Conformity to these norms is enforced by the culture; those who do not adhere to these behaviors are punished by isolation, lack of promotion, social exclusion, workplace exclusion, and ridicule. Because masculine and feminine stereotypes are still enforced for men and women, men often gravitate toward careers that relate to or represent the masculine role. The same is true for women and the feminine role. Kasen, Chen, Sneed, Crawford, and Cohen (2006) argue that women’s personality characteristics stem from societal expectations and are © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

162


subject to shifts in societal norms. Nevertheless, women and men are still socialized into different societal roles. Historically speaking, women have been socialized for homemaking and child rearing (communal traits), and men have been socialized for providing for (monetarily) and protecting their families (agentic traits). These historical prescriptions, have, over time, come to be seen as ‘‘natural.’’ Lueptow and colleagues (2001) state, ‘‘As males are disproportionately full-time workers in higher status jobs and family leaders, these characteristics account for the perception of males as agentic [sic] and females as communal’’ (p. 3). We still feel the effects of traditional gender-role socialization, which can have negative effects on career women. For example, even women who have highly demanding careers invest more time on household responsibilities than their male peers do (Cinamon, 2006). Moreover, women are often socialized to have different views of achievement and relationships than men are (Kerka, 1993). Some women are taught not to value competition but relationships. The traditional view that women are noncompetitive can cause women to fear being competitive out of a concern that their behavior will be viewed as unattractive (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Because of these attitudes, and the reinforcement of them by cultural norms, women experience not only different societal expectations but also different workplace opportunities. Gender-role expectations exaggerate gender characteristics and minimize the individual differences between people. McGowen and Hart (1990) suggest that women’s and men’s developmental experiences affect both their professional and personal experiences. Kasen and colleagues (2006) found that traditionally masculine traits were higher in women who worked full-time, which suggests that adult personality traits (especially concerning agency) can be shaped by the environment: For women in a high-powered professional or business position, the increase in agentic [sic] traits may come at the expense of a decrease in communal traits, perhaps because expression of the latter by working mothers, especially those in demanding career-track occupations, may heighten others’ perceptions of lessened commitment to the workplace. (p. 954)

Gender-role socialization influences self-efficacy, which in turn influences one’s career decisions (Cinamon, 2006). Because American women are socialized to pursue career and family simultaneously, this often results in women selecting less demanding careers that will allow more time for family and children. Because of this double workload and work–family conflict, women sometimes experience lower levels of self-efficacy, which can reduce feelings of competency in both © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

163

realms, and then a vicious cycle is created. Ferguson (1984) states the following: The feminine role is inherently depoliticizing, in that it requires women to internalize an image of themselves as private rather than public beings. Women have largely been spectators rather than participants in public life, and the more firmly they have been integrated into the feminine role the more removed they have been from the public realm. Women are not powerless because they are feminine; rather, they are feminine because they are powerless, because it is a way of dealing with the requirements of subordination. (p. 95)

In sum, socialization and gender-role stereotypes contribute to internalized perceptions that people hold of women and that women hold of themselves that they are more effective within the home than outside it. The realities that women face in the workplace, such as discrimination, lack of networking opportunities and mentors, and the struggle for balance between family and career, also contribute to women’s continued career lag behind men. Women’s socialization into the feminine gender role results in their gaining less access to information, which results in lower career self-efficacy in comparison to men, and thus fewer opportunities to develop their career potential (Sullivan & Mahalik, 2000). Although many women behave in nontraditional ways in the workplace and in the home (e.g., by expecting more from their male partners), the pressure exists to perform traditional femininity in a variety of areas (Kirchmeyer, 2002). Pressure to possess traditionally masculine behavior increases women advance in nontraditional fields; likewise, traditionally feminine traits decline in women with career advancement (Kirchmeyer, 2002). The dilemma for women is that many have to alter themselves to fit into the work world, which is still organized around stereotypically masculine characteristics, or they have to strive to change the status quo to be more accepting of and accommodating to women and the needs of women (McGowen & Hart, 1990). However, even when women adopt stereotypically masculine characteristics to gain acceptance in nontraditional fields, they are judged more harshly than men, or they are deemed undesirable, for they are stepping outside their socially prescribed role. It is not surprising, then, that women sometimes avoid striving for career advancement (management or leadership roles), for if women do venture out or take these risks, they have to struggle to maintain a sense of positive self-worth when it seems that the deck is stacked against them. Kirchmeyer (2002) states the following: Women in such occupations often are required to prove themselves extensively to earn advancement . . . and according to social identity


164


theory, if such pressures are perceived to threaten self-esteem, they can lead to defensive rigidity. . . . In comparison, men in traditionally male occupations may feel more secure and open to expand their behavioral repertoires following advancement. (p. 932)

In other words, a woman’s path for career advancement is not a clear one; even when traits like assertiveness are valued in a certain organization, they might not be accepted when they are exhibited by women. Women must be doubly careful to read the unspoken code of an organization to know how to behave in a manner that is acceptable to the organization and to figure out where her efforts will be rewarded. Shepard (1997) argues that women must pay attention to perceived employment characteristics regarding gender and genderrole expectations in the workplace to achieve success; such awareness allows women to present themselves in a positive light in their workplace environment and in a manner that will counteract negative expectations. Women can fight such double standards (one code of conduct and expectations for men, another for women) in organizations, but to do so they must overcome the crisis of confidence that will naturally result from going against the grain (of socialization and stereotypes). According to Kasen and colleagues (2006), gender-role socialization tends to inhibit characteristics in women that are traditionally associated with men, especially during the young adult years; during middle age, women are more likely to embrace facets of their personality that have been suppressed as a result of societal pressure; i.e., as women grow older and gain more experience, being accepted on an individual basis as opposed to being viewed merely in terms of societal stereotypes of expected behavior for women. Although research indicates that the gap is closing, gender stereotypes in the realm of personality traits do persist. For instance, when women are perceived as possessing less agentic, their careers can suffer (Abele, 2003). Focusing on differences rather than similarities is limiting and downplays the sociocultural basis of these supposed differences (Whiston & Bouwkamp, 2003). According to Williamson and Hudson (2001), a major issue regarding workplace socialization is the extent to which people challenge the norms. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE ‘‘Since women’s psychology of dependence is tied to the reality of male power,’’ Ferguson (1984) notes, ‘‘women are not likely to view self-assertion as safe; assertiveness is always risky for the powerless’’ (p. 168). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

165

Although women have made gains in the workforce, traditional stereotypes persist about appropriate feminine behavior and women’s role in the home. In the United States, more often than not, men are still perceived to be the principle breadwinners within the traditional nuclear family, and women are still perceived as the primary providers of home and family care. Those who deviate from these patterns are judged harshly (Marler & Moen, 2005). Traditional masculine characteristics include the following: adventurous, aggressive, ambitious, assertive, competitive, decisive, dominant, independent, individualistic, and self-confident. Traditional feminine characteristics include the following: affectionate, communal, emotional, empathic, expressive, gentle, submissive, sympathetic, and talkative (Kirchmeyer, 2002; Lueptow et al., 2001). Intrinsic qualities that contribute to career success include a strong sense of self, independence, self-efficacy, assertiveness, persistence, and the ability to take risks (Hite & McDonald, 2003). Tomlinson-Keasey (1974) found conflict between societal expectations for women and women’s personal aspirations. Thus there is a disconnect between what some women want for themselves and what society expects of them. Hutri and Lindeman (2002) found that women experience more occupational crises than men do; these stem from trait anxiety, such as unexpressed anger and depression. Keim, Strauser, and Ketz (2002) found that women experience more anxiety and lower self-esteem than men do, which can affect career potential and prevent women from achieving as much as men achieve. In Finland, Pulkkinen, Ohranen, and Tolvanen (1999) found that extroversion in adult women led to a high career orientation. Lueptow and colleagues (2001) found that gender-typing personality characteristics as ‘‘typical’’ of men or women still continues—that nothing much has changed in this realm in the last few decades. If anything, such stereotyping is on the rise in the United States with the nation’s renewed climate of conservatism (Lueptow et al., 2001). In other words, many personality characteristics are still, to a large degree, thought to be gender specific. Characteristics that correlate positively with workplace involvement and success include emotional stability, independence, high selfesteem, self-efficacy, an internal locus of control, assertiveness, and a lack of anxiety (Pulkkinen et al., 1999). These are also characteristics that are typically associated with men. Because of the societal tradition of essentializing the sexes into opposite and separate entities (e.g., yin and yang), when certain stereotypically masculine traits are associated with women they have a different connotation—or women are thought not to possess them at all. The explanation for why women exhibit more communal traits than men do is controversial. Some believe that it is a result of biology, of © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

166


evolution, and that it speaks to men’s and women’s essential or ‘‘natural’’ differences. Communal traits in women might not be related directly to occupational roles or to women’s lack of holding positions of power throughout history; they might stem from women’s role in the home. That is, women have traditionally played the nurturing role in the home, and although women are more prevalent in the workplace than they were 50 years ago, the role of primary nurturer in the home still predominantly falls upon the woman. Thus, although the communal style or group of traits is sometimes ascribed to biology, it is more likely caused by sociology. Roberts (1997) found that high levels of career advancement for women result in higher levels of agency, which is a traditionally masculine trait. The association between masculinity and career success and advancement has been found in both women and men (Kirchmeyer, 2002). Abele (2003) found that agency is more important to workplace success than is communion. Women tend to possess fewer agentic traits than men so (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). The reasons for this involve the perceptions of observers, or society in general: Women are more likely than men to hold positions with low levels of status and authority and are more likely than men to be in the unpaid labor force (i.e., working within the home). Thus, women are perceived by society to be less likely to enjoy positions of power, and this can translate to perceptions of women’s capabilities—which further leads to women’s perceptions of their own capabilities (and contributes to the vicious cycle that maintains women’s secondary status). Specifically, if women perceive their opportunities to be less than those of men, they might strive for less or not try for promotions or certain management positions for fear of failure. This fear can then cause a lack of motivation and thus perpetuate the cycle of there being few women in top management positions (Dreher, 2003). Moreover, when women take career risks or achieve success in nontraditional realms, they are sometimes viewed negatively by others. Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, and Tamkins (2004) note the following: A woman’s success in areas traditionally reserved for men can give rise to social penalties, causing them to be disliked and negatively viewed. These results also are suggestive [of] the nature of the negative characterizations likely to result. When women violate gender prescriptions by being successful in areas that are not traditionally part of their domain, they seem to be cast in a light that not only is negative but also is antithetical to the traditional stereotype of women and conceptions of how they should be. (p. 417)

To further complicate the societal prescriptions for women, a woman’s family and peers also influence her career expectations and career decisions (Guay, Senecal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003). Parental belief in © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

167

stereotypical roles can discourage girls and young women from pursuing nontraditional fields (Creamer & Laughlin, 2005). According to Pulkkinen and colleagues (1999), constructive activity in one’s childhood correlates with positive management of working life as an adult. Socially passive and anxiety-ridden behavior as a child are indicative of problems later—stressful situations as an adult are likely to be dealt with internally rather than confronted externally. Pulkkinen and colleagues note, ‘‘Previous research has shown that in stressful life conditions women tend to react by internalizing rather than externalizing their problems’’ (p. 54). It is more difficult for women, especially those who are traditionally oriented, to be successful in male-dominated fields because they have to alter their personalities to be accepted as competent. There is social pressure on women to change within traditionally male fields (Kirchmeyer, 2002). Peplau (1976) presents a traditional view of women’s career development by arguing that women who find themselves in competition with men fear losing their femininity, and women’s achievement may be impacted because women strive to maintain, at the very least, an illusion of male superiority. Peplau (1976) found that traditional women perform better in noncompetitive or team settings, whereas nontraditional women excel in competitive situations. Androgynous oriented women experience less fear of success than traditionally feminine women do (Kearney, 1982). Whiston and Bouwkamp (2003) found that career-oriented women possess more intrinsic needs, such as independence and achievement. According to Twenge (1997), communal traits have remained higher in women than in men, whereas agentic traits have increased in women over time. Twenge found that the gap between women and men is decreasing in terms of feelings of personal agency. Twenge (2001) found that assertiveness (an agentic trait) in women has been increasing in the past 20 years but that it varies with status and roles. Women in nontraditional fields, such as engineering, do not show gender differences in agentic and communality. Both women and men reported possessing agentic, or dominant, behavior when in positions of supervision; however, it was mainly women who reported communal, or submissive, behaviors when in positions of workplace subordination (Abele, 2003). Personal Expectations Personal expectations with regard to one’s career have much to do with how far one will advance. ‘‘The self-concept contains a number of ‘possible selves,’ which are defined as conceptions of what we ideally will become in the future, what we expect we will become, and what © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

168


we fear we will become’’ (Chalk, Meara, Day, & Davis, 2005). According to Creamer and Laughlin (2005), women are more likely than men to seek advice from others about career decisions and are more influenced by others. Bizzari (1998) found that some women think that their values are not universal values; they also found that women put their personal needs on hold to first serve the needs of the family. In other words, serving the needs of others, or putting others first, whether at work or at home, is often common among women. Selflessness serves as an obstacle to workplace success for women. Bizzari found that responsibility for women was often synonymous with being ‘‘good,’’ providing for the family in a variety of ways, and that selfishness was defined as meeting one’s own needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs might not be reflective of self-actualization for women, because self-fulfillment for women is directly tied to the nurturing of others—not for biological reasons, but as learned behavior. Expectations of Others Self-actualized, secure, and independent women are not nurtured and cultivated by our society. In fact, people ask what is wrong if a woman has chosen not to have children. Although women might be perceived as possessing the necessary (read: male) characteristics for an occupation, these characteristics are not considered to be what women ‘‘should’’ actually ‘‘be like.’’ There are consequences for women who do not fit their prescribed role, such as social ostracism and receiving negative personal feedback. Women who behave in traditionally male ways are less well received than are men who deviate from traditional norms (Heilman et al., 2004). Competent women and women leaders can be viewed by others as cold, bitter, quarrelsome, and selfish when they simply possess the same personality characteristics as their male counterparts (Heilman et al., 2004). Sometimes they don’t even possess the characteristics but are merely believed to possess them. According to attribution theory, the personality characteristics and accomplishments of women and men are explained differently. For example, women’s accomplishments are often attributed to luck or other external factors, and their advancement is attributed to affirmative action and not to personal ability (as men’s accomplishments are) (Kirchmeyer, 1998; Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Moreover, women’s performance on traditionally male-oriented tasks is often attributed to luck or to effort, whereas men’s performance is attributed to skill (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). The reason for the former is that such success violates people’s gender-role expectations; thus, to avoid cognitive dissonance, the observers attribute negative attributes to women, such that women are not responsible for their own successes—they just ‘‘got lucky.’’ © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

169

Appearance Finally, another form of oppression that women must face within the workplace is the issue of appearance. According to Thompson and Keith (2001), the ‘‘pursuit and preoccupation with beauty are central features of female gender-role socialization’’ (p. 354). Women who are deemed unattractive are more vulnerable to bias within the workplace. Author Grant Bowman (cited in Ehrenreich, 2005) points out, ‘‘Marcia Clark . . . changed her hairstyle, dress and personal manner, became softer, more feminine, warmer and more open—in short, less like the aggressive trial lawyer she is and more like a stereotypical woman’’ (p. 108). To be accepted in the work world, women often have to spend more time and money on their appearance than men do. If women do not pay as much attention to their appearance as is deemed socially necessary, or if their appearance is seen as unfeminine, they will be judged harshly for it. Appearance and its judgment by others seem to affect all women in some way, but currently there is a lack of formal research in these areas.

WOMEN IN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE According to one theory, skewed gender ratios in organizations create negative self-fulfilling prophecies for the nontraditional or token group (e.g., women). That is, the dominant or majority group (at the top) exaggerates the differences between itself and the token group, thus resulting in negative consequences for the token group. Lyness and Thompson (2000) state, ‘‘Men’s negative behaviors toward token women are also thought to be more likely when the women hold male gender-typed positions, that is, those typically held by men or thought to be more appropriate for men . . . such as senior management’’ (p. 87). According to Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) research on tokenism, women experience many negative consequences for their secondary positions: believing that that they need to change to fit in the organizational culture, being excluded from informal interactions, having less mentoring, being viewed as stereotypes, and receiving fewer developmental assignments. Token status also often leads to increased scrutiny of job performance, which in turn prevents women from gaining entrance to the higher levels of the organization (Goodman et al., 2003). The majority of corporate environments are created and controlled by men. In addition, corporate culture is perpetuated by a homogeneous group of White males (Bierma, 1999). For women to be successful, they must learn to navigate through this culture or attempt to change it. Lyness and Thompson (2000) found that women executives © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

170


experience more barriers to advancement and lower job satisfaction than their male counterparts do. Vinnicombe and Harris (2000) state, ‘‘The informally accepted definition of success in an organization tends more closely to match the one held by men. This often results in women being perceived as less ambitious’’ (p. 28). Corporate culture consists of beliefs, philosophies, language, rituals, traditions, and norms that perpetuate the traditional power structure (Bierma, 1999). The current corporate male hierarchy perpetuates the advancement of men and the stalling of women in positions that lack formal power and corporate influence. For example, decision makers report a confidence level of 75% when promoting men, but only a 23% confidence level when promoting women (Ruderman, Ohlott, & Kram, 1995). Bierma (1999) studied how women function within corporate culture and found that women go through stages of learning and development, including the following: compliant novice, competence seeker, and change agent. In the compliant novice stage, women attribute their learning to an external authority and consider themselves to be naı¨ve or overly grateful for what they receive in terms of pay and advancement. At this stage, women think that, if they simply cause no trouble, they will be rewarded. As women gain experience and find that simply being nice and compliant will not in itself warrant promotion, they begin to focus on gaining competence. These women then attempt to develop their own peer networks and mentors to gain this organizational competence. The competence seeker stage presupposes being accepted in the current organizational structure and culture; this is crucial to being accepted by men. These women are often afraid of offending men and try to fit in with them (thus, no overt feminism here, no attempting to change the status quo). At this stage, women adapt and assimilate to the culture; they do not try to change it. When feeling dissent, they express it through silence. As one participant states (cited in Bierma, 1999): A lot of women make mistakes by being too much pro-woman. I think that you have to recognize that you are bucking the old-boy’s network. It’s alive and well and kicking very strongly. If you fight that in a negative way then you’re looked upon as a troublemaker and a women’s libber. [The men] don’t need that. (p. 111)

These women accept the male centrism of the organization without question, even though they are excluded from the informal networks or cliques. In the change agent stage, women transition out of the male-oriented stages and into an arena in which they feel comfortable challenging the status quo. This type of change is inspired when women realize that they are not advancing as their male counterparts are, despite their © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

171

competence and expertise. At this stage, women have gained more personal experience and have achieved some degree of personal power. They become empowered through their associations with women in similar positions, and they form networks geared to organizational change. These women view themselves as organizational change agents and seek to change the culture, either overtly or covertly. Bierma (1999) also found a lack of feminist identification in the women she studied. Women believed that adopting the label feminist could be damaging to them in their career advancement. Nevertheless, they did adhere to many feminist beliefs and used feminist language. However, they refused to attribute their unfair treatment in the organization to discrimination or harassment, despite their knowledge, transformation, and progression through the stages. This set of beliefs contributes to an organizational culture in which gender discrimination and even gender harassment are unacknowledged and thus tolerated. This research highlights the importance of consciousness-raising for women in traditional male organizations or corporate cultures. It also addresses the importance of helping others who are excluded from informal networks and of the importance of mentoring other women (and other members of token groups) so that they can also achieve success and advancement within the organization. This research also implicitly raises the question of whether a feminist identification is beneficial to women in the workplace, especially women who are grappling with discriminatory environments. Vinnicombe and Harris (2000) found that many organizations are run as closed and informal systems in which opportunities for promotion and advancement are discussed and agreed upon through informal networks, many of which exclude women. These informal networks create and perpetuate the organizational culture. Career or job commitment, for example, is defined through these informal networks; because these consist primarily of men, women’s definitions of commitment, which allow for conflicts (e.g., work-family balance, child care), are absent from these networks and thus from the boss’s perceptions and evaluations of women workers. In other words, women are often evaluated unfairly because of this omission and inconsistency. According to Dryburgh’s (1999) examination of Canadian workplace culture in engineering, it is more difficult for women than men in this field to achieve success because women have to make more of an adjustment to the organizational culture in terms of the perceptions of others and solidarity with others within the profession. She states the following: Women have to work harder than men, and they face obstacles not there for men of similar ability. Women . . . have to adjust [not only] to the


172


occupational culture but also to the masculinity of that culture. They . . . have to portray themselves as competent [not only] to their employers and clients but also to male colleagues. Finally, women have to prove their solidarity to others in the profession, a more difficult task for women than men, given engineering’s masculine identity. (p. 666)

Each profession has its own culture with which successful employees (members) must become acclimated. It is easier for men, with their informal informational networks, to successfully acclimate themselves. Women often have to compensate simply for being women. Women in nontraditional fields have to adapt not only to a workplace culture but also to the masculinity of that culture. This can produce anxiety. Group identification leads to empowerment (Chronister & McWhirter, 2006), but when women do not possess identification with a group—with the majority culture or with other women— workplace satisfaction is greatly reduced, and anxiety increases. In sum, women often face tremendous obstacles to gain acceptance in an organizational culture, especially in nontraditional fields. They must deal with negative expectations, gender-role stereotypes, and doing more than is expected to be seen as competent. They must try to find a mentor or a way into the informal networks that are often closed to them so that they can learn to navigate the hostile waters of organizational culture. Women must also face the hostility that results when they advance into nontraditional realms. Heilman and colleagues (2004) note the following: Terms such as bitch, ice queen, iron maiden, and dragon lady are invoked to describe women who have successfully climbed the organizational ladder. . . . These characterizations provide some insight into why, despite their success, high-powered women often tend not to advance to the very top levels of organizations. (p. 426)

To achieve career advancement, especially in corporate culture, women must overcome the reluctance of those in power to ‘‘take risks’’ with women. Having a sponsor who has power within the organization is helpful in this regard (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). Finally, battling the status quo to change the perception that it is, in fact, a risk to hire or promote a woman is something that requires immediate attention.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Because women have traditionally held less power, they are thought to be less deserving of respect and of positions with high status (or in © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

173

which power can be achieved) (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004). Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1997) argue that women find it more difficult than men do not only to assert authority but also to consider themselves as authorities in their fields. Traditionally, women’s occupations have had less authority in general than men’s have (Lyness & Thompson, 1997), and traditionally masculine characteristics have been more valued in the field of management than traditionally feminine characteristics (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Women have to work harder to be seen as deserving of positions of leadership or management. Because of these realities, women leaders need not only mentoring and networking but also opportunities to shine so that others will acknowledge their leadership. This in turn will encourage women to believe in themselves as leaders. Women need opportunities to show their skills and to alter the faulty perceptions that their personalities are deficient in the appropriate characteristics for leadership. Traditional masculine characteristics, such as assertiveness and individuality, are the preferred personality characteristics for managers. Male managers are perceived much more than women to possess the necessary personality characteristics to be successful leaders (Kirchmeyer, 1998; Lyness & Thompson, 1997). When female managers are perceived as not possessing these personality traits, they have to try harder to be viewed as competent. When women behave in traditionally feminine ways, they may be perceived as not being successful or as not fitting into their positions as leaders. In fact, there is a perceived lack of fit in general between the stereotypes of women and the characteristics of successful managers; there are also expectations for the failure of women in leadership and management positions. Lyness and Thompson (1997) found that there are more similarities than differences, overall, between female and male executives. The differences are merely perceived rather than real. According to Lyness and Thompson (1997), research on leadership has demonstrated that people are more reluctant to have a female supervisor, and this results in a less supportive environment for women to achieve success in management or leadership. Goodman and colleagues (2003) note the following: We found that women are more likely to hold top management jobs in establishments with higher turnover and lower average management salaries. To some extent, unfortunately, women appear to be securing top jobs in less desirable establishments, possibly as men seek top jobs in more stable, higher paying organizations. (p. 493)

Gender-role theory posits that people come to develop behavioral expectations for themselves and others based on the behavior that they © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

174


deem to be appropriate for women and men. Similarly, within organizations, people develop expectations for behaviors that they deem to be appropriate for managers or leaders (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). The theory of gender-role spillover is also relevant to this discussion, for it posits that people (e.g., leaders) are perceived simultaneously in terms of their gender and in terms of their role in the organization—thus, gender-role expectations for women and men carry over into their workplace roles. The consequences of this are vast. Because people’s expectations for leaders and managers are more consistent with traditional expectations for men in general, male leaders and managers are often perceived to be more effective than women are in similar roles. This results in another dilemma for female leaders and managers: Women must decide whether to fulfill people’s expectations for them as women or as leaders and managers. This is a no-win situation. Eagly and colleagues (1992) state the following about women: By fulfilling people’s expectations concerning leadership, they violate conventions concerning appropriate female behavior. As a consequence, women in leadership roles may be devalued relative to their male counterparts—that is, perceived as behaving less competently and as having less ability and effectiveness as a leader. (p. 5)

A third option would be for women leaders to do what comes naturally to them; however, they will be judged harshly for this if they violate traditional norms of femininity. Another explanation for why women have limited access to leadership roles and management positions is that women’s credentials and performances are not evaluated in a fair manner; similar leadership qualities, such as assertiveness, are viewed less favorably when shown by a woman. Eagly and colleagues (1992) found that women leaders were devalued compared with male leaders when the leadership was carried out in a stereotypically masculine manner. This devaluation was exacerbated when women leaders occupied male-dominated realms and when male evaluators were used. Eagly and colleagues also found that women leaders were more harshly evaluated when the evaluators were men: Because placing women in leadership positions upsets the traditional societal gender hierarchy, male subjects might, in a sense, have more to lose by approving female leadership because their status vis- a-vis women would decline. Thus, male subjects may be more prone than female subjects to reject female leaders. (p. 7)

Women also reported that their style of management (personality factors) were obstacles to their advancement (Shinew & Arnold, 1998). © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

175

Women leaders often describe their leadership styles as being fundamentally different from men’s. This is not because women are essentially different from men, but because they are perceived to be different and societal expectations for them are different. Thus, women often attempt to get their subordinates to come to a consensus. In sum, the way that management should be conducted is still viewed in terms of individualistic traits (rather than relational traits). Vinnicombe and Harris (2000) argue that this perception persists because of the processes (e.g., hidden attitudes and stereotypes) of the informal organization. ‘‘The balance of the sexes in management can still be summed up by the phrase ‘think manager, think male,’ just as it was in the 1970s’’ (p. 28). Schwartz (1989) found that there are two types of female managers and calls them career-primary and career-and-family. Williamson and Hudson (2001) found that women who possess what is perceived as a feminine leadership style will have their style questioned; for example, some women have had their sense of calm misperceived as weakness. Women in positions of leadership who possess a traditionally feminine style are often perceived as weak, wimpy, and wishy-washy. Women’s leadership goals include making a difference and personal fulfillment rather than ambition and power. In a study of female managers, Stroh, Brett, and Reilly (1996) found that women tended to leave management not because of marriage and children, which is the predominant perception, but because of a perceived lack of opportunities (i.e., a glass ceiling) within the organization. In fact, these researchers found that family created more stability for managers rather than less. ‘‘Job-hopping,’’ says Shih (2006), is a strategy often used by women to circumvent bias. Stereotypes of female managers include jealousy, micromanaging, inability to delegate, and being overly emotional. These are also traits of people without power (token status). Sometimes female leaders want to stay away from politics, for they are taught to value relationships. They fear that the political system of networking is damaging to valued relationships. However, finding personal power and developing political savvy is instrumental in achieving success within organizations (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Sex-role stereotypes still exist and thus create a double standard that negatively affects the evaluation of women in management (Dreher, 2003; Pardine, Fox, & Salzano, 1995). The percentage of women in positions of management has increased since the mid-1970s; however, the perception still endures that women are unqualified or unable to perform in such capacities. Those women who do make it into positions of management do little to contribute to the change in perception or changes in stereotypes of women; on the contrary, these women are instead thought to be the ‘‘exception’’ to the stereotype. They are seen © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

176


as unrepresentative of women in general, so their accomplishments do not impact societal beliefs about the qualifications of women in positions of management. In the last 30 years, the percentage of women in positions of power in low and middle management has increased significantly. However, the percentage of women in positions of power in top management is relatively small (Dreher, 2003). For example, in 2000, women made up 12.5% of corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies, but less than 5% of the top earners (Catalyst, 2000). Education and Female Administrators Education is a field that is still dominated by women, yet women do not typically pursue administration positions (Weller, 1988). Hensel (1991) found that women still experience gender discrimination in higher education; they experience higher attrition rates and have slower career mobility than men do. The gender discrimination in this field, however, is more subtle: Women who do research on women are less valued, women’s performance is more critically evaluated, and salary differentials favoring men still exist. According to the American Association of University Professors equity study (West & Curtis, 2006), women hold only 24% of full professor positions in the United States. Despite the gains that women have made in higher education in the past few decades, they are highly underrepresented in tenure-track positions. Women face more obstacles to career advancement in higher education than they do in the corporate world. The areas with the fewest number of women in higher education are the most prestigious and most highly paid. Women make far less money than men in higher education because they are more likely to hold positions at institutions that pay lower salaries, and they are less likely to gain senior rank. The perceptions of others has much to do with whether female administrators will experience success, and it has been found that to reach success as an administrator is more difficult for women than it is for men (Shakeshaft, 1987). Women administrators are more readily accepted when they possess certain personality characteristics; they are also more constrained than their male counterparts by cultural norms of appropriate behavior (Duncan & Skarstad, 1995). Women may be perceived differently based upon the ways in which they implement and use their power (Duncan & Skarstad, 1995). To achieve workplace success, female administrators often have to project certain characteristics of what is deemed to be appropriate feminine behavior. These characteristics include ways of speaking, dressing, interacting, and leading. Also, women administrators who possess the power to do something are more accepted than those who exhibit © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

177

power over others. In a study of female administrators, Duncan and Skarstad (1995) found that the expectations for these women were tremendously high. These expectations came from both the women themselves and from others. Women have to do more than men to be seen as competent. According to Weller (1988), successful female administrators strive for the following: to know oneself, to have shared goals, to have a mentor, to network, to be prepared and above reproach, and to not focus on gender. However, it is not the responsibility of individual women alone to change the status quo. Organization can do their part to increase equity for women in the workplace; they can be proactive to reduce organizational barriers for women and other minorities. In sum, women have to work harder to be taken seriously or to be seen as deserving of their positions. Despite the fact that more and more women are entering the workforce and positions of power, leadership is still, to a great degree, perceived to be a male realm (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003). Women should have knowledge of male– female issues within the workplace so that they can navigate through gender-role stereotypes and the perceptions of others instead of blaming themselves when their leadership styles are not readily accepted. THE GLASS CEILING AND OTHER BARRIERS TO WOMEN’S WORKPLACE SUCCESS The glass ceiling is a metaphor created to signify the artificial barrier that prevents women from advancing in the workplace because they are women (Anderson, 2005). Women of color report experiencing additional barriers to advancement because of race; thus, the term concrete ceiling was coined to describe the interlocking oppressions of gender and race. One real barrier to women’s advancement that falls under the metaphor of the glass ceiling is the lack of informal networks open to women in the workplace (i.e., a female counterpart to the ‘‘old boys’ network’’) (Cotter et al., 2001; Weiler & Bernasek, 2001). Such a network would be unnecessary if women did not experience workplace discrimination and exclusion from the existing workplace networks. Informal networks have been very beneficial for men who are advancing in corporate America. It allows them to enjoy mentorship, learn the hidden rules of the organization, and learn of opportunities for advancement. Women are often left ‘‘out of the loop’’ because they are excluded from these networks and have none of their own. Women’s networks do not exist for a variety of reasons that stem from the problem of patriarchy: There are not enough women at the top to build them; the women who are at the top feel loyalty to the men who put them there and are thus hesitant to help the women © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

178


beneath them; and, because there are so few opportunities for women, they consider other women as competitors and fail to help them. Anderson (2005) cites the view that ‘‘the occupational behavior and status of women and men is determined not so much by the characteristics they bring with them into the workplace, but by the structures they encounter there’’—that is, being relegated to low-status jobs (p. 63). Therefore, women have fewer opportunities, resources, and access to power and resources than men do. However, individual mentors can assist in career advancement for women and minorities. Women in general experience both internal and external barriers to their workplace success (Whiston & Bouwkamp, 2003). Internal barriers to gainful employment and advancement for women include role conflict, low self-efficacy, negative perceptions of women by others, low expectations, limiting gender-role identities, etc. External barriers include sexual harassment, lack of mentors, socioeconomic status, discrimination in education and occupation, and gender-role stereotyping (Noonan, Gallor, & Hensler-McGinnis, 2004). Men’s careers often follow a linear path (Sterrett, 1999). Women’s careers often progress in a nonlinear fashion, involving gaps that are related primarily to issues with child care (Pulkkinen et al., 1999). Women are more likely than men to experience an employment gap (Reitman & Schneer, 2005). Sterrett (1999) indicates that women tend to put less emphasis on pay and more on career satisfaction. Furthermore, if women are not oriented toward competition, they can be put off by the corporate structure. For example, women are often unwilling to make the personal sacrifices, such as less time spent with family, that are demanded by organizations. Despite these findings, more research is necessary on how women experience their careers. Another internal barrier that some women face is guilt. Women who want to advance in the workplace often feel bad about leaving their homes and families. Successful women have indicated that they had to put their careers first at certain times. Men do this quite frequently in order to advance, but women are often judged negatively for it whereas men are not. Mentors are important for women in dealing with this and other issues (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Women also report that they are provided with fewer opportunities for advancement and that women with children are directed into slower employment tracks (Shinew & Arnold, 1998). Women often compare themselves to other women and not to men within the workplace, so some might not analyze their experiences as resulting from discrimination or differential treatment (Sterrett, 1999). Women in the workplace report experiencing more discrimination and gender-based obstacles to advancement (such as sexual harassment), as well as lower career aspirations, than men do; women are also more likely to report © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

179

harassment and discrimination (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004; Shinew & Arnold, 1998). Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2004) found that when women experienced gender-based discriminatory and/or harassing behavior, the health of all employees decreased. The same was true when employees perceived the organization to be tolerant of this behavior. As MinerRubino and Cortina (2004) state, ‘‘This raises the possibility that the legal definition of hostile work environment should extend beyond targets to include employees whose harassment experiences are ‘merely’ vicarious or indirect—for example, employees who have witnessed the sexual harassment of female coworkers but who have escaped direct harassment themselves’’ (p. 119). Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2004) found that working in an environment that is hostile to women affects the well-being of employees even if they do not personally experience this hostility directly. In other words, misogyny in the workplace affects everyone: bystanders, groups of workers, and the organization as a whole. Bystander stress can be caused from being in an environment where sexual harassment occurs: even if this type of harassment involves hostile environment or gender-based harassment (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004). According to Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2004), ‘‘. . . ambient sexual harassment, or indirect exposure to harassment, contributes to negative outcomes among employees, over and above influences of direct exposure to sexual harassment and general occupational stress’’ (p. 108).

Men can also suffer negative consequences from sexual harassment and misogyny in the workplace, for the tolerance of these behaviors sends them the message that the organization does not value individuals or treat people equally (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004). Organizational cultures that tolerate sexual harassment actually show an increase in incidents of sexual harassment (Welsh, 1999). Timmerman and Bajema (2000) found that unwanted sexual conduct is less of a problem in organizational cultures that are perceived as providing equal opportunities for both women and men. Furthermore, experiences of gender discrimination result in lower job satisfaction, decreased career selfconfidence and satisfaction, and increased isolation (Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006). Role Conflict and Role Overload Role conflict occurs when family and career expectations are compounded by the behavioral expectations placed on women (Crampton & Mishra, 1999). Domestic circumstances are still very different for women than they are for men (Wajcman & Martin, 2002). For example, women usually have to deal with additional responsibilities at home © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

180


(i.e., they have dual roles), so they are unable to take on additional work that would assist them with future promotions. Feminists have discussed the concept of the double workload for decades. This term was coined to describe the many women who have entered the workplace and who come home from one full-time job to another full-time job: housework and child rearing. This concept corresponds to the lack of child care and housework that is taken on by husbands and boyfriends. The division of labor in the home between women and men is still unequal. Women spend twice as much time as men do on household tasks and on child care, despite working outside the home the same amount of time (Williams, Manvell, & Bornstein, 2006). This tradition is reinforced by the media. Television commercials and print advertisements typically portray only women using cooking and cleaning products—unless, of course, the role carries a certain amount of prestige, such as a chef. Williams and colleagues state, ‘‘The leveling off of women’s employment and men’s household contributions are likely related. Because most men do not carry an equal share of household work, women’s ability to accept promotions or to remain in good jobs is constrained’’ (p. 21). Women with children often take jobs with fewer responsibilities and less compensation or decline promotions in order to be in positions that are more flexible so that they have more time for the family. Unmarried women in the workforce experience better health than their married counterparts; married women experience better health if their husbands contribute to household labor. Heavy workplace demands and a low level of personal control contribute to health risks (Long, 1995). The benefits of motherhood (e.g., caring and nurturing) have been emphasized over the costs of motherhood, or what women have to give up to be considered ‘‘good mothers.’’ Role conflict and role overload are often used to dissuade women from entering the workforce or returning to it after giving birth to or while rearing children. The complications of paid employment, marriage, child rearing, and homemaking can cause social-role dissonance, psychological distress, physical stress, and strains on one’s health and well-being (Baruch, Biener, & Barnett, 1987; Cinamon, 2006). However, with more support from the employment realm (e.g., on-site child care) and the family (e.g., support from the husband in terms of shared responsibilities), women can be more successful in the workplace and less torn by their many roles. According to a study on work, marriage, and life satisfaction (Perrone, Webb, & Blalock, 2005), there are differences in how women and men spend their time, but no differences in what they value or how women and men wish they could spend their time. This study suggests © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

181

that if women and men structured their lives in terms of what they valued, there would be no gender differences in role participation in the major areas of life: work, family, and leisure. College women pursuing nontraditional careers reported desiring fewer children, held more feminist attitudes, and planned to share household responsibilities (Cinamon, 2006). Having a spouse that is supportive is related to less role conflict and heightened well-being (Kasen et al., 2006). Long (1995) found that, in terms of stress, employed women are better off than women who do not work outside the home. Lack of career progression for women can be a source of stress. Long suggests that women are subject to the same workplace stressors as men are; however, women are also subject to additional stressors, such as sexual harassment, gender discrimination, genderrole stereotyping, and role conflict. Evaluation Procedures Effective performance is often attributed to ability when the employee being observed is a member of the in-group rather than the outgroup; in the latter case, success is often attributed to luck. This does not just apply to gender; it also applies to race, class, and sexual orientation. White males are more likely to have their successes attributed to their own ability than are White women, Black women, and Black men (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Black women face increased discrimination because of the double bind they experience when facing both racial and gender discrimination. People who possess token status are more likely to be noticed in an organization and thus have their work more closely supervised (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004). Employees who were thought to perform well because of ability were also judged more worthy of promotions than were those whose successes were attributed to luck or effort (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Women experience discriminatory evaluation procedures, have their competence denied, and have their performance devalued as a result of their gender (Heilman et al., 2004). These unfair processes perpetuate negative expectations of women, which result from the inconsistency in how women are viewed and the characteristics that are necessary to perform a particular job. Even when women are successful in traditionally male occupations, they are still often judged unfairly. Settles and colleagues (2006) examined the causes of levels of attrition in women in science-related fields. These high levels of attrition seem to suggest an atmosphere that is problematic for women in general. Women of color were found to have less influence in their departments than White women had. Women in the field of science experience fewer opportunities for leadership and influence, slower © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

182


advancement, and heightened isolation. Settles and colleagues argue that, to be successful in science-related fields, women must realize three outcomes: job satisfaction, productivity, and a ‘‘felt influence.’’ Sexual harassment and sexist environments in general affect these areas. These factors and the tolerance of them within an organization hinder the success of women and are tied to lower productivity and career outcomes for women. Backlash The term opt-out revolution was coined in 2003 by journalist Lisa Belkin to convey the phenomenon of women who choose to leave the paid workforce to raise children full-time. This phenomenon created a media frenzy and was picked up by a variety of papers, including The New York Times. It is more accurate to say, however, that women are leaving the workforce because of the following: inflexible workplaces, discrimination and stereotypes, lack of support for working families, or workforce-workplace mismatch (Williams, Manvell, & Bornstein, 2006). These opt-out stories started a firestorm of antifeminist rhetoric in the media, where several false assumptions were made on the basis of quasiscientific data—for instance, that the pay gap was a result of women’s decisions and not as a result of discrimination. To make matters worse, many readers accepted these stories without question because they confirmed the traditional stereotypes of women, many of which the readers already held. Williams and colleagues (2006) stated the following: Why is fuzzy data so uncontroversial in this arena? People tend to accept stereotype-affirming information readily; data that disconfirm stereotypes are more likely to trigger demands for formal documentation. . . . This is just one of many ways the Opt Out story repeats and reinforces stereotypes about women. (p. 19)

Workforce-workplace mismatch occurs when an organization’s expectations of the workforce do not accommodate the needs of workers, such as workplaces being inflexible for working mothers who need a more flexible schedule. This notion creates a more accurate picture of what was and is occurring with American women. Another problem with the opt-out news stories was that they focused on upper-class and upper middle-class White women who were in high-status, traditionally male-dominated careers. Williams and colleagues (2006) state, ‘‘Women married to the wealthiest men have lower levels of employment than any other group, but over half of even this group is employed’’ (p. 25). The opt-out stories do not reflect the experiences of the majority of working women in America. Rather, they convey an unrealistic picture of women’s chances of picking up their careers where they left off if © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

183

and when they choose to return to work after raising children. This further contributes to the backlash against women; it provides a false sense of encouragement to women by implying that they will not suffer any negative consequences from opting out—such as being unable to regain their positions. The opt-out articles also focus on a return to traditionalism or traditional values. However, this is truly not what is occurring. There has been a change in what women expect from men, and women’s roles have changed as well. Women are not extricating themselves from working altogether. Rather, they are removing themselves from the ‘‘all-or-nothing’’ workplace. This is quite different from what the opt-out articles are suggesting. Williams and colleagues (2006) state the following: American families are pressured into an all-or-nothing pattern in which fathers work very long hours, while mothers work very short ones and function virtually as single mothers—hardly an ideal pattern that should be celebrated as a return to traditional values. (p. 31)

The opt-out articles also imply that child care is inherently women’s work. Williams and colleagues (2006) state, ‘‘More often reporters take masculine privilege for granted and treat it as uncontroversial’’ (p. 34). One article in The New York Times (cited in Williams et al.) presented a more realistic view of this opt-out issue by noting that the majority of stay-at-home mothers stated that even though their husbands had expressed a willingness to help with the children and the house, ‘‘the men rarely lifted a finger unless they were specifically asked and given detailed instructions about the task at hand’’ (p. 34). The United States is only one of four countries worldwide that does not provide for paid parental leave. The other countries are Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland (Williams et al., 2006). Opt-out stories ignore the discrimination against women that is still present in today’s workforce and that causes many women to leave their jobs and perhaps the working world in general (if they can afford to, that is). Finally, the opt-out stories penalize younger women because they provide them with an inaccurate picture of how things really are; young women might not be aware of the wage loss they will incur from taking a few years off. These stories minimize the economic penalties of leaving the workforce and make it seem easy to come back without penalty. ANECDOTAL FINDINGS I sent out an e-mail questionnaire to gather anecdotal data from female educators and university professors, women in law, and women in the corporate world for current perspectives on women’s workplace experiences, focusing specifically on personality characteristics. (The questionnaire can be found at the end of this chapter.) © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

184


I received a response from a district court judge who went to law school later in life, after she had had a child. She summarized some of her workplace experiences as follows: I’ve been approached for gender, flirted with and sexually harassed. I’ve also been ignored and discounted, and my ideas and work [have] been passed off as someone else’s. I’ve been called ‘‘honey,’’ ‘‘dear,’’ ‘‘sweetie,’’ and ‘‘girl.’’ After I became an attorney, my male boss used to come in my office at 6 P.M. and say, ‘‘Take a letter to _________; I need to get this done today and my secretary is gone.’’ And I would actually type his letter for him!

She described some of the challenges she faced in the workplace as follows: One, men mistake my being feminine or ‘‘nice’’ for being weak; two, I’ve had to turn down male coworkers and/or clients who asked me out on dates in a way that didn’t make them mad; three, some men don’t think I’m as smart as they are because I tend to be quieter and less assertive; four, men assume that because you’re a woman of childbearing years (and you might have children or be planning to have children), you’re not as dedicated to the job as they are; five, I believe (but I have no proof) that I was paid less than my male counterparts; six, juggling child care and work was very difficult when I was a single mom and my son was young; seven, some men (many times, older men) feel more comfortable dealing with men than with women at work because, I think, they’re used to thinking of women in a sexual or maternal context and not as equals in the workplace; eight, many men don’t value what they consider ‘‘female’’ traits, such as good communication skills or the desire and ability to form consensus instead of fighting, as much as they value ‘‘male’’ traits such as aggression and competition.

About female leadership, the judge had this to say: I do think women leaders face more scrutiny and are judged more harshly than their male counterparts. Women who are leaders, bosses, managers, etc., are expected to be beautiful as well as extremely good at their job, or they will be criticized, discounted, or laughed at. I’m not sure whether people want women [who are] leaders to be feminine or masculine. As I said before, if you’re too feminine, they think you’re weak; but if you’re too masculine, you’re a dyke or a bitch. It can be a no-win situation for the female. I think women need to combat their natural tendency to be quiet—they need to speak up as much as the men when they have something of value to say.

Finally, the judge ended her commentary with some suggestions: I think women are routinely given less responsibility than men. Sometimes, women who do not fulfill others’ expectations can be ostracized, or excluded, from real power. I think, above all else, that female leaders need to appear strong, or men will think they are weak. No hesitation is


Shifting the Load

185

allowed for females! And they should never, never cry in front of anyone! They should have a superior command of the English language— good public speaking is essential.

Another response I received was from an elementary school teacher in an affluent district. Working a female-dominated field, she had many interesting observations to share, such as the following: I believe that if men dominated the field of education, had as much responsibility, and were required to have as much education, the overall wages earned by educators would be higher. My school had a female principal for 5 years; teachers, in general, thought it was appropriate to comment negatively about how she dressed. They criticized her because they thought she spent too much money on her clothing. She always looked professional, in my opinion. This principal was generally able to accomplish what she wanted to accomplish, but sometimes had to fight hard in order to do so. When she left rather abruptly, a male principal was hired to be the interim [principal]. I was unable to attend the staff meeting that was held on his first day, but I arrived as it was letting out. The teachers were actually swooning as they walked down the hall after the meeting, each carrying a rose and a doughnut, indicating that they felt like someone was there who was really ready to listen to them. I never heard one word about his choice of clothing, and in my opinion, he was rather ineffective as a leader, but the staff was never happier. He never bothered to learn anyone’s name, just called everyone ‘‘dear,’’ ‘‘sweetie,’’ or ‘‘darling.’’ The staff at this school is almost entirely female. The custodian is male and would not do what the female principal asked of him. [Yet] he was at the male principal’s beck and call.

I also received a response from a high school teacher. She indicated that the majority of teachers in her building are female, but the majority of administrators are male. Prior to having children, she aspired to be an administrator, but now she thinks that it is too much of a time commitment: I see the administrators here from 7 A.M. until 10 P.M., working during the school day and supervising extracurricular activities in the evening. I do not want that type of work schedule. I want to do my job and be home with my family by 4 P.M. I think that many of my female colleagues feel similarly, which is one reason there are so few female administrators at the high school level. I know one woman who is interested in becoming an administrator. She is at a point in her life where her children are grown, and she is ready for another challenge. Maybe I’ll feel the same way in 18 years, but for now, I’m happy doing what I’m doing.

The following is from an assistant superintendent of a large school district, a woman who was formerly the first female principal in the district: © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

186


I have noticed that women often have strength in the workplace that men in management sometimes lack. Women seem to be able to work through the personality conflicts that so often occur in the workplace. Women can forgive. Women can apologize. Women can get two people to recognize that they need to ‘‘get over’’ their past differences.

The assistant superintendent also recognizes the need for informal networks for women: ‘‘Finally, the only obstacle that still occurs is the informal, after-hours networking. Golf, fishing, card games, etc., still tend to be male-oriented, and so you are often excluded.’’ Another response I received was from an aspiring leader. She had many interesting things to say about people’s perceptions of women in the workplace: I think that we still walk a fine line between being assertive and being a ‘‘bitch.’’ It doesn’t seem that there is room for the more emotional, feeling side of women in the workplace. Many times it still feels like I need to be more like a man in order to succeed. I think women face greater scrutiny and are judged more harshly, particularly by men from the ‘‘old-school’’ way of thinking. As I stated above, women walk a fine line between being assertive and being a ‘‘bitch,’’ and men who don’t like what they are hearing from their female leaders are likely to try to denigrate the woman by calling her names. It is a cop-out on their part, but it happens. I think that some women self-sabotage or fail to take the risks necessary to advance. Female bosses are highly visible, so their selfsabotage or lack of risk taking are more visible to others and can tend to lead others to conclude that all female bosses will act in a particular way. An assertive woman in particular needs to be certain to temper it somewhat so as to not appear aggressive, even though it is okay for men to be aggressive. Society still isn’t ready for that in women.

With regard to how women treat other women, this woman stated the following: I think our treatment of each other—snide comments to the face, mean snarky comments behind the back, spreading gossip, etc.—create the largest of obstacles. We no longer know who[m] we can trust within our workplace, and [we] must be constantly on guard against this type of slanderous attack. These attacks result in hard feelings, and then if one woman is put into a position of power, the others can and [will] attack her from below, resulting in her downfall (potentially). I think that women’s success will be increased the day that we stop fighting one another with our snarky comments and petty jealousies. Women need to stand together and disagree because of facts, evidence, and data and not for the personal reasons that so often seem to enter female conflict. Men do this already, in large part. I’m not saying that we need to treat conflict like men or lead like men, but I do think that the ability to put aside the personal and focus on objective facts would serve women well.


Shifting the Load

187

In sum, these findings indicate that women’s role conflicts often prevent them from entering leadership or management positions, that mentoring and networking are very important for women’s advancement, that women are still excluded from men’s information networks, and that there are still different expectations for women and men in terms of personality characteristics, which affects women’s advancement and the evaluation of women’s performance in positions of leadership. SELF-REALIZATION AND FEMINIST IDENTIFICATION ‘‘Many women tend to choose peace over conflict,’’ notes Chesler (2001). ‘‘This often means accepting the status quo and punishing anyone who dares challenge it’’ (p. 32). Men often view career success by position and pay. Women often have different standards by which to judge success, such as achievement, recognition, and influence (Vinnicombe & Harris, 2000). However, women value self-realization and personal freedom within the workplace just as much as men do (Whiston & Bouwkamp, 2003). Women can benefit tremendously by having other women mentor them (Lockwood, 2006). Women, like men, also benefit from group networking. When women enter nontraditional fields, such networks might not be open to them. The solution to this is to create a new networking system or to fight the status quo and attempt to gain admittance to these seemingly closed systems. Having a mentor and/or a network for assistance can increase women’s workplace advancement and success and thus contribute to women’s self-realization. As Chesler’s (2001) words above indicate, women, especially middle-class women, are still, to a large degree, socialized to avoid conflict. This prevents many women from attempting to challenge the powers that be for fear of being labeled ‘‘difficult,’’ ‘‘bitchy,’’ or ‘‘feminist.’’ If women are to recognize the need to create their own networking systems within organizations, consciousness-raising must occur first. A woman must first determine that a problem exists within her organization, then she must convince other women that this problem exists and to join her in her crusade: to start a new networking or mentoring system to benefit women and transmit knowledge of the inner workings of the organization, or else to battle the status quo. Developing a feminist consciousness can assist women in these endeavors. Some people feel that to develop a feminist consciousness means to denigrate men. This is in no way the case. Dismantling the inequities and abuses of patriarchy is decidedly different from disparaging individual men. Bell Hooks (cited in Chesler, 2001) states the following: We must challenge the simplistic notion that man is the enemy, woman the victim. We all have the capacity to act in ways that oppress,


188


dominate, wound (whether or not that power is institutionalized). It is necessary to remember that it is first the potential oppressor within that we must resist—the potential victim within that we must rescue—otherwise we cannot hope for an end to domination, for liberation. (p. 474)

Women too can behave in sexist ways. Women harm other women all the time and can block their advancement. Women, like men, are influenced by and have internalized patriarchal norms. Chesler (2001) states that ‘‘women are so used to having their boundaries routinely violated at home by men and by other women that they often repeat such invasive behavior in business and professional relationships’’ (p. 364). Women within a patriarchy have been kept apart by the divide-and-conquer mentality. Women have been socialized to compete with one another for the attentions of men or for the token position instead of coming together to work for a common cause. Feminism has brought many women together, but even feminists can hold sexist attitudes. Several recent studies on feminist identification suggest that women are hesitant to self-identify as feminists primarily because of the term’s perceived negative connotation. Some researchers indicate that young women tend to express feminist ideas without labeling themselves as feminists (Henderson-King & Stewart, 1994; Morgan, 1995; Percy & Kremer, 1995; Renzetti, 1987; Rupp, 1988; Stacey, 1987; Weis, 1990). Burn, Aboud, and Moyles (2000) found that even when women and men agree with the goals of feminism, they avoid self-identification with the term for fear of being associated with a stigmatized label. The cultural messages that women receive from patriarchy are the devaluation of all things female. Instead of identifying with what is perceived as negative (i.e., female), women often choose to male-identify, to strive to be ‘‘one of the boys,’’ or an honorary man. This gives women a false sense of power, because they can never truly be what they seek to imitate or ‘‘put on.’’ This male identification, or ‘‘performance,’’ is further revealed in their need to qualify the term feminist if they do in fact choose to use it as a self-identifier. Aronson (2003) found that feminist identification can be classified on a continuum: ‘‘I’m a feminist,’’ ‘‘I’m a feminist, but . . .’’, I’m not a feminist, but . . . ’’, ‘‘I’m a fence-sitter,’’ and ‘‘I’ve never thought about feminism.’’ This qualification often stems from this need to male-identify: ‘‘I’m a feminist, but I don’t hate men,’’ ‘‘I agree with many feminist causes, but I’m not a prude,’’ or ‘‘I would be a feminist, but I’m not that uptight.’’ According to Aronson, most women are fence-sitters. Some researchers believe that this ambivalence toward feminism can be cultivated into active support for the feminist movement (Martin, 2006). If raising a feminist consciousness can, at the very least, promote individuals to see societal or systemic inequities as stemming from © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Shifting the Load

189

discrimination as opposed to individual inadequacy, then the individual hesitation of women (and men) to embrace a feminist identity does not seem valid. Feminist identification can also serve to heighten women’s self-esteem by cautioning women to be willing to attribute workplace ‘‘failure’’ not to a lack in themselves but to organizational (read: patriarchal) norms. To challenge workplace inequities, women must begin to view gender as a variable (i.e., as a potential cause for their lack of advancement). Feminist consciousness-raising can assist women in developing an awareness of discrimination and harassment and how to deal with it, in promoting the notion of mentoring and obtaining a mentor, and in creating women’s networks to assist women in organizational navigation. ‘‘Feminism is for everybody,’’ Hooks (2000) informs us. ‘‘Feminist change has already touched all our lives in a positive way. And yet we lose sight of the positive when all we hear about feminism is negative.’’ In sum, feminism is still important and relevant to our lives as women, and the issues of gender and sex are still relevant to research on women in the workplace. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Ferguson (1984) argues the following: Real androgyny, defined not as simply adding together the misshapen halves of male and female, but rather as a complex process of calling out that which is valuable in each gender and carefully disentangling it from that which is riddled with the effects of power, is a political struggle. (p. 170)

Conscientization, a term coined by Freire (1971), is the process of developing a critical consciousness, or ‘‘learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality’’ (p. 19). This process involves analysis of self, of others, and of the relation of self to others to better understand one’s control of situations and one’s power to change the surroundings from oppressive to liberating. This phenomenon can assist in providing solutions to workplace inequities for women. Women can use this technique to raise awareness of the problems inherent in today’s organizations and in battling the status quo to create a more equitable workplace. To do this, however, one must possess courage. Hite and McDonald (2003) provide some insight into the hindrances to women’s career advancement, which include discrimination, failure to understand organizational culture (or the politics of the © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

190


organization), lack of management experience, supervisors who do not support women, fewer opportunities for women to prove themselves, and fewer opportunities to gain visibility within the organization. Additional factors that influence women’s career progress include having mentors, being persistent and assertive, displaying competence (and having the opportunities to do so), performing well, and accepting risky assignments (i.e., assignments that stretch one’s abilities). Female counselors who work with women in the workplace should focus on self-efficacy and autonomy to decrease career indecision (Guay et al., 2003). Counseling programs should focus on increasing the self-efficacy of young people in combining work and family roles (and conflicts), especially with women who have experienced traditional parenting (i.e., women as primary caregivers who carry the majority of child-care and household responsibilities) (Cinamon, 2006). Counselors and practitioners must also focus on the role conflict that women experience and on the differences between societal expectations for women and women’s personal and career aspirations (TomlinsonKeasey, 1974). There are many things that women can do on an individual level to assist themselves and the women around them to heighten workplace success and advancement, such as the following: . Work to value yourself as a woman. . Have confidence in your own abilities. . Have high expectations for yourself. . Do not fear politics. . Do not necessarily avoid conflict. . Do not be intimidated. . Develop relationships. . Be proactive in managing your own career. . Set career goals. . Accept challenging assignments. . Take career risks when possible. . Attribute your successes to your abilities, not to mere luck. . Encourage other women to take career risks. . Form alliances with other minority groups. . Develop consciousness-raising groups. . Network and strive to create networks for women. . Get a mentor. . Mentor another woman. . Do not fear feminism. Raise awareness about the benefits of feminism for both women and men.


Shifting the Load

191

. Find profeminist men to be allies. . Find a supportive partner who is a true partner in the home. . Work on developing an internal locus of control. . Work for the establishment of progressive gender-role identities. . Intervene when gender harassment and sexual harassment is witnessed. Report instances on the organizational level and support victims. Behavior such as this negatively affects the organization and everyone involved within it. Intervene for the health and well-being of all individuals and for the overall health of the organization. . Vote for legislators who value women and who will fight for laws that promote equity for all people.

Despite the above prescriptions for individual women, the challenge of achieving workplace equity with men in both compensation and position must not simply fall on individual women. Organizations must also take part in egalitarian practices if women are to advance to a level equal to that of men. To do this, organizations must adapt to meet the needs of today’s women (e.g., child care). There are many organizational and societal changes that would contribute to workplace success and advancement for women. These include the following: . Paid leave, such as maternity, parental, and family . Child-care options, including flexible work hours, staggered shifts, and child-care facilities within or sponsored by the organization or included in benefits packages . Regulated working time, so that employees without children are not inadvertently rewarded . Health care for employees and their families . A tax system that does not penalize two-income families

Additional organizational and family changes that could be made to promote workplace equity include: . Equity in pay and benefits for women . Bias-free job evaluations . Educational opportunities for women . Education for men on shared responsibilities in the home and in the care of children . Parental leave . Day care . Alternative work schedules for working families . Flexibility for women in order to manage work–family conflict


192


. Education for women in leadership/management . Mentoring and networking . Educational opportunities for women on how to deal with politics in the workplace (especially when organizational culture is male-centrist).

FUTURE RESEARCH More research is necessary on how a woman’s appearance affects workplace success and advancement. This is an area that seems to affect all women in some way, but little research exists in this area. More research is also necessary on the question of what personality characteristics have to do with gender and with workplace success and advancement for women. The intersections of class, race, and gender should be examined for how they continue to affect women’s workplace experiences. An examination of race and gender and how these impact performance attributions and performance assessment would be useful in gauging how workplace discrimination affects employees. Socialization and gender-role stereotypes, sexual harassment, and sexist environments affect women, men, and the organization in general; these are areas that require further study. How organizations train employees to avoid these problems and how they deal with offenders also requires further study. More research in general is necessary on how women experience their careers and deal with workplace stress. Additional research is required in the area of feminist identification. For instance, does overt feminist identification inhibit advancement for women in general? Do women believe this to be so? How can individual and collective feminist identification assist women in forming the networking relationships that are so crucial to success in an organization? Does the extent to which women challenge the status quo affect workplace success and advancement? Finally, is the failure to develop a feminist consciousness relevant to women’s success? Is keeping a feminist consciousness secret important to women’s continued workplace success and advancement? Attempting to find the answers to these and other related questions would contribute tremendously to the study of feminism in the workplace and to the continued importance of feminist ideals for women today. CONCLUSIONS Ferguson (1984) wrote the following: Real social change comes about when people think and live differently. Feminist discourse and feminist practice offer the linguistic and


Shifting the Load

193

structural space on which it is possible to think, live, work, and love differently, in opposition to the discursive and institutional practices of bureaucratic capitalism. At least it is a start. (p. 212)

Women in general face more obstacles to career success and advancement, in terms of pay and position, than men do. However, this does not mean that women are simply victims of the anonymous patriarchal bureaucracy. Women have more agency than this; women have made tremendous advancements in the past 50 years. Nevertheless, there are still institutional and systemic barriers to women’s advancement. Much has to be done within organizations to combat these obstacles, but women can participate in the creation of better realities for themselves. Women must often fight the way they were raised—which can feel like fighting themselves—to achieve workplace equity. For example, women have to learn to combat their silence and lack of voice. Women also have to fight the tradition of hiding their intelligence for fear of seeming intimidating or threatening to both men and other women. Women are raised and socialized not to ‘‘show off.’’ Confident women are often accused of this. Finally, women are instilled with the desire to be liked—sometimes no matter what the cost. Women must not trade off their successes in order to be liked by the group. In short, if their workplace and home situations do not reflect what they want for themselves, women must work to create new patterns of how to work and how to live that best suit them. This might be a radical notion to some, but the truth is that women do not have to do what is expected of them. They can actually take risks, challenge the status quo, and create new visions of how to live in the world. Those who possess power and privilege will not readily give them up. Women will have to continue to fight for every gain, but they will fare better if they have a say in creating the world in which they live.

QUESTIONNAIRE 1.

What experiences or challenges have you (or women you know) had in the workplace specific to your gender?

2.

What are some obstacles women still face in the workplace?

3.

In your experience, are the leadership styles of women with whom you are acquainted inherently different from those of men?

4.

Do female leaders face greater scrutiny than male leaders do, in your experience? Why or why not? Are female bosses, supervisors, and leaders judged more harshly than their male counterparts? Why? What can be done to combat these harsh judgments?


194

Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium 5.

How are expectations for women in the workplace different from those of men in terms of personality characteristics? In terms of workload? In terms of responsibility?

6.

What are the consequences for women who do not fulfill others’ behavioral expectations?

7.

What personality characteristics do successful female leaders need to possess? Are these characteristics different from those of their male counterparts?

8.

Describe how women’s personality characteristics can interfere with workplace politics. What challenges in terms of personality factors do women face?

9.

Is there a counterpart to the ‘‘old boys’ network’’ that can assist women in the workplace to navigate through organizations?

10.

Are women in the workplace perceived to have less power in general than their male counterparts? Why? Is this true for bosses and supervisors? What does personal power have to do with success for women in the workplace? How is this achieved for women?

11.

How can role conflict interfere with career success for women? How can personal perceptions of role conflict interfere?

12.

Can feminist identification assist with any of these workplace issues for women? If so, how? Is feminist identification important for workplace success for women?

REFERENCES Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality, 85 (4), 768– 776. Anderson, D. R. (2005). The importance of mentoring programs to women’s career advancement in biotechnology. Journal of Career Development, 32 (1), 60–73. Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or ‘‘postfeminists’’? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17 (6), 903–922. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baruch, G. K., Biener, L., & Barnett, R. C. (1987). Women and gender in research on work and family stress. American Psychologist, 42 (2), 130–136. Baucom, D. H. (1983). Gender role identity and the decision to regain control among women: A learned helplessness investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 334–343. Baucom, D. H., & Danker-Brown P. (1984). Gender role identity and genderstereotyped tasks in the development of learned helplessness in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (2), 422–430. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.


Shifting the Load

195

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future. Journal of Career Assessment, 14 (1), 3–11. Bierma, L. L. (1999). A model of executive women’s learning and development. Adult Education Quarterly, 49 (2), 107–121. Bizzari, J. C. (1998). An intergenerational study of three gifted women: Obstacles and challenges confronting women of high potential. Roeper Review, 21 (2), 110–116. Boatwright, K. J., & Egidio, R. K. (2003). Psychological predictors of college women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (5), 653–669. Brown, M. T., Eisenberg, A. I., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1997). Traditionality and the discriminating effect of expectations of occupational success and occupational values for women within math-oriented fields. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 418–431. Brown, S. G., & Barbosa, G. (2001). Nothing is going to stop me now: Obstacles perceived by low-income women as they become self-sufficient. Public Health Nursing, 18 (5), 364–372. Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42 (11/12), 1081–1089. Carr, P. L., Szalacha, L., Barnett, R., Caswell, C., & Inui, T. (2003). A ‘‘ton of feathers’’: Gender discrimination in academic medical careers and how to manage it. Journal of Women’s Health, 12 (10), 1009–1018. Catalyst. (2000). Census of women corporate officers and top earners. New York: Author. Chalk, L. M., Meara, N. M., Day, J. D., & Davis, K. L. (2005). Occupational possible selves: Fears and aspirations of college women. Journal of Career Assessment, 13 (2), 188–203. Chesler, P. (2001). Woman’s inhumanity to woman. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Chronister, K. M. (2006). Social class, race, and ethnicity: Career interventions for women domestic violence survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37 (3/4), 175–182. Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimental examination of two career interventions of battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53 (2), 151–164. Cinamon, R. G. (2006, March). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background. Career Development Quarterly, 54, 202–215. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80 (2), 655–682. Crampton, S. M., & Mishra, J. M. (1999). Women in management. Public Personnel Management, 28 (1), 87–106. Creamer, E. G., & Laughlin, A. (2005). Self-authorship and women’s career decision making. Journal of College Student Development, 46 (1), 13–27. Dreher, G. F. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of gender ratios and work-life programs on female leadership at the top. Human Relations, 56 (5), 541–562. Dryburgh, H. (1999). Work hard, play hard: Women in professionalization in engineering—adapting to the culture. Gender and Society, 13 (5), 664–682.


196


Duncan, P. K., & Skarstad, K. (1995, October). How women administrators are perceived by others: A case study examining the relationship between leadership temperament, use of power, and success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 3–22. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (4), 735–754. Ehrenreich, B. (2005). Bait and switch: The (futile) pursuit of the American dream. New York: Metropolitan Books. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gati, I., Givon, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1995). Gender differences in career decision making: The content and structure of preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42 (2), 204–216. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gonzalez-Figueroa, E., & Young, A. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and mentoring among Latinas in professional roles. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11 (3), 213–226. Goodman, J. S., Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top? Group and Organization Management, 28 (4), 475–501. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and career advancement prospects: An examination of gender and race effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273–297. Guay, F., Senecal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 (2), 165–177. Harlan, S. L., & Berheide, C. W. (1994). Barriers to work place advancement experienced by women in law-paying occupations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 416–427. Henderson-King, D. H., & Stewart, A. J. (1994). Women or feminists? Assessing women’s group consciousness. Sex Roles, 31 (9–10), 505–516. Hensel, N. (1991). Realizing gender equality in higher education: The need to integrate work-family issues. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340 273) Hite, L. M., & McDonald K. S. (2003). Career aspirations of non-managerial women: Adjustment and adaptation. Journal of Career Development, 29 (4), 221–235. Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge MA: South End Press. Hutri, M., & Lindeman, M. (2002). The role of stress and negative emotions in an occupational crisis. Journal of Career Development, 29 (1), 19–36.


Shifting the Load

197

Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed gender ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990. Kasen, S., Chen, H., Sneed, J., Crawford, T., & Cohen, P. (2006). Social role and birth cohort influences on gender-linked personality traits in women: A 20year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (5), 944–958. Kearney, M. (1982, April). Relationship between gender-role orientation and fear of success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, MD. Keim, J., Strauser, D. R., & Ketz, K. (2002, March). Examining the differences in career thoughts of women in three low socioeconomic status groups. Journal of Employment Counseling, 39, 31–39. Kerka, S. (1991). Adults in career transition. Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 896) Kerka, S. (1993). Women, human development, and learning. Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 379) Kirchmeyer, C. (1998). Determinants of managerial career success: Evidence and explanation of male/female differences. Journal of Management, 24 (6), 673–692. Kirchmeyer, C. (2002). Change and stability in managers’ gender roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 929–939. Konrad, A. M., Yang, Y., Goldberg, C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Preferences for job attributes associated with work and family: A longitudinal study of career outcomes. Sex Roles, 53 (5/6), 303–315. Lindley, L. D. (2005). Perceived barriers to career development in the context of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 13 (3), 271– 287. Lockwood, P. (2006). ‘‘Someone like me can be successful’’: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36–46. Long, B. C. (1995). Women and work-place stress. Greensboro, NC: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 496) Lopez, F. G., & Ann-Yi, S. (2006). Predictors of career indecision in three racial/ethnic groups of college women. Journal of Career Development, 33 (1), 29–46. Lueptow, L. B., Garovich-Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. B. (2001). Social change and the persistence of gender typing: 1974–1997. Social Forces, 80 (1), 1–36. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (3), 359–375. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 86–101. Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1399–1412. Marler, J. H., & Moen, P. (2005). Alternative employment arrangements: A gender perspective. Sex Roles, 52 (5/6), 337–349.


198


Martin, J. L. (2006, April). ‘‘Ho no mo’’: A qualitative investigation of female language usage, reclamation and rejection. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. McGowen, K. R., & Hart, L. E. (1990). Still different after all these years: Gender differences in professional identity formation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21 (2), 118–123. Midgley, N., & Abrams, M. S. (1974). Fear of success and locus of control in young women. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 42 (5), 737. 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 (2), 107–122. Morgan, D. (1995). Invisible women: Young women and feminism. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Feminist activism in the 1990s. London: Taylor and Francis. Noonan, B. M., Gallor, S. M., & Hensler-McGinnis, N. F. (2004). Challenge and success: A qualitative study of the career development of highly achieving women with physical and sensory disabilities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 (1), 68–80. Oliver, R. (2007). Women short-changed . . . still. Available online at www.tompaine.com/print/women_shortchanged_still.php Pardine, P., Fox, I., & Salzano, J. (1995). Substereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. (Eric Document Reproduction Services. ED 397 239) Peplau, L. A. (1976). Impact of fear of success and gender-role attitudes on women’s competitive achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (4), 561–568. Percy, C., & Kremer, J. (1995). Feminist identification in a troubled society. Feminism and Psychology, 5 (2), 201–222. Perrone, K. M., Webb, L. K., & Blalock, R. H. (2005). The effects of role congruence and role conflict on work, marital, and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 31 (4), 225–238. Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31–59. Pulkkinen, L., Ohranen, M., & Tolvanen, A. (1999). Personality antecedents of career orientation and stability among women compared to men. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 37–58. Ranck, E. R. (1999). Gender issues in preparing a professional workforce: New views of women’s work in early care and education. Child and Youth Care Forum, 28 (1), 59–67. Raskin, P. M. (2006). Women, work, and family: Three studies of roles and identity among working mothers. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (10), 1354–1381. Reio, T. G., & Callahan, J. L. (2000, April). Affect, curiosity, and socializationrelated learning: A path analysis of antecedents to job performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Reitman, F., & Schneer, J. A. (2005). The long-term negative impacts of managerial career interruptions: A longitudinal study of men and women MBAs. Group and Organization Management, 30 (3), 243–262.


Shifting the Load

199

Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16 (5/6), 265–277. Roberts, B. W., & Friend, W. (1998). Career momentum in midlife women: Life context, identity, and personality correlates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3 (3), 195–208. Roberts, R. W. (1997). Plaster or plasticity: Are adult work experiences associated with personality change in women? Journal of Personality, 65, 205–232. Ruderman, M. M., Ohlott, P. J., & Kram, K. E. (1995). Promotional decisions as a diversity practice. Journal of Management Development, 14 (2), 6–23. Rupp, R. (1988, January–March). Is the legacy of second-wave feminism postfeminism? Socialist Review, 52–57. Schwartz, F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, 1, 65–76. 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. Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Shakeshaft, C. (1992, April). Deconstructing the erected hierarchy: Gender and power in organizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Shepard, S. I. (1997, October). Differences in the perceived employment characteristics of men and women and employer/organizational policies toward men and women. Paper presented at the Women in Educational Leadership Conference, Lincoln, NE. Shih, J. (2006). Circumventing discrimination: Gender and ethnic strategies in silicon valley. Gender and Society, 20 (2), 177–206. Shinew, K. J., & Arnold, M. L. (1998). Gender equity in the leisure services field. Journal of Leisure Research, 30 (2), 177–194. Stacey, J. (1987). Sexism by a subtler name? Postindustrial conditions and postfeminist consciousness in the Silicon Valley. Socialist Review, 17 (6), 7–28. Sterrett, E. A. (1999). A comparison of women’s and men’s career transitions. Journal of Career Development, 25 (4), 249–259. Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1996). Family structure, glass ceiling, and traditional explanations for the differential rate of turnover of female and male managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 99–118. Sullivan, K. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Increasing career self-efficacy for women: Evaluating a group intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78 (1), 54–62. Taylor, E. L., & Rosselli, H. (1997, March). The effect of a single gender leadership program on young women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Thompson, M. S., & Keith, V. M. (2001). The blacker the berry: Gender, skin tone, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Gender and Society, 15 (3), 336–357. Timmerman, G., & Bajema, C. (2000). The impact of organizational culture on perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 188–205. Tomlinson-Keasey, C. (1974). Role variables: Their influence on female motivational constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21 (3), 232–237.


200


Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145. Vinnicombe, S., & Harris, H. (2000, January). A gender hidden. People Management, 6, 28–29. Wajcman, J., & Martin, B. (2002). Narratives of identity in modern management: The corrosion of gender difference? Sociology, 36 (4), 985–1002. Weiler, S., & Bernasek, A. (2001). Dodging the glass ceiling? Networks and the new wave of women entrepreneurs. Social Science Journal, 38, 85–103. Weis, L. (1990). Working class without work: High school students in a de-industrializing economy. New York: Routledge. Weller, J. (1988). Women in educational Leadership. Columbus, OH: Center for Gender Equity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 742) Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and sexual harassment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 169–190. West, M. S., & Curtis, J. W. (2006). AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Whiston, S. C., Bouwkamp, J. C. (2003). Ethical implications of career assessment with women. Journal of Career Assessment, 11 (1), 59–75. Williams, J. C., Manvell, J., & Bornstein, S. (2006). ‘‘Opt out’’ or pushed out? How the press covers work/family conflict: The untold story of why women leave the workforce: University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Williamson, R. D., & Hudson, M. B. (2001, April). New rules for the game: How women leaders resist socialization to old norms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.


Chapter 12

Women Supporting Women in the Workplace: In My Own Voice Carrie Turco

Presently employed as a finance analyst, I create reports for higher management on invoice and discount information. I am the functional owner of a third-party auditing project and of banking management applications. I have been in my present position since January 2007. Previously, I worked for 6 years as a manager with various corporate restaurants. My most recent restaurant position was as a training manager. In this position, I trained newly hired managers in all areas of the restaurant, ensuring that they were trained to uphold corporate business standards. I also worked as a kitchen manager, controlling 70% of the restaurant’s resources. I helped raise more than $5,000 for the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital by encouraging my employees to volunteer their time and efforts to help those in need. In each of my jobs, I incorporated voluntary community service projects with the employees. I truly believe that the success of any company lies in its ability to give back to the community that supports the company and its employees. Without a strong local community, most companies would not last. I also have experience working for the Walt Disney Company as a photographer and retail intern, and then as a campus recruiter for its internship program. My experience working for Walt Disney World was the most influential in my career thus far. Upon the completion of the internship program, I was more focused on and driven in my career and education. As an undergraduate at Plattsburgh State University of New York, I majored in management and minored in accounting, economics, and business analysis. While attending school © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

202


full-time, I also worked full-time as a manager, played collegiate women’s tennis, and was president of my dorm. I also volunteered with the local chapter of Project Help and was actively involved in the Omnicom Delta Kappa National Leadership Honor Society. I am currently in the last year of my MBA and human resources certificate programs from Union Graduate College. To complement my education, I have also attended several conferences throughout my career, with a focus on educating managers on all aspects of human resources. Throughout my professional experiences, I encountered several people who truly impacted the outcome of my education and my career. Each of these people was instrumental in helping me learn about who I am, not only as a person and a colleague but, most important, as a businesswoman. While interning at Walt Disney World, I took two courses at the Disney Institute: Organizational Leadership and Human Resource Management. My professors helped me develop a better understanding of my potential as a business student and as a human resource professional. More recently, a previous boss taught me to stand up for myself and for what I believe in, even if I was standing alone. Working in the restaurant industry as not only a young manager but also a woman proved to be the biggest challenge to my character and my ethical standards. As a moral and ethical person and manager, I was constantly challenged because of my beliefs as well as my age and gender. I am grateful that I was raised with a high level of ethical and moral standards and to believe in myself and stand up for what I believe is right. During my 6-year career in restaurant management I was challenged to confront higher management, employees, and regional directors to ensure the moral standards of the environment in which I worked. I tackled sexual harassment lawsuits at the age of 20, even before I completed my business degree. I have been in predicaments that resulted in my immediate boss being fired for illegal conduct, theft, and harassment. Finding my place among male management teams was challenging, but equally as challenging was finding my place as a manager among employees who were mostly my age. Proving yourself as a leader when you are the same age as, or even younger than, your employees can be difficult. Doing it as a female can make it even more strenuous. In the end, not only did I grow and evolve as a great manager, I also became one of the most respected managers in the region. Each restaurant that I left tried for several months to convince me to come back; effective female managers are few and far between in the restaurant industry. In the end, quality of life is what is most important. Female managers bring an entirely different perspective to the table. Not only do women think differently from men, they tend to be more detail-oriented. © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

Women Supporting Women in the Workplace

203

Presently, I have encountered a professor who truly knows the value of being a great educator. Far too often, colleges and universities focus on everything except the students. Today’s students, particularly business students, are tomorrow’s leaders. Professors are instrumental in the development of business students, thus impacting the development of the business world of the future. My current professor has allowed me the opportunity to work on special projects, like this one, to share my experiences and knowledge to other women and students. She has helped me stand up to the administration of our university and challenge it to treat all students fairly and equally. It is rare to find faculty members who are willing to help the students when there is no direct benefit to themselves. I am grateful to have encountered each of the mentors I have had through my career. I look forward to their guidance and assistance as I continue to grow professionally. Women have to fight hard to establish themselves in any career, but without women, most industries and businesses would fail. Some men might still openly ridicule women as leaders and employees, but deep down they know that their job security relies on the hard work and dedication of a woman. It is for these reasons that I was honored to be included in Who’s Who of Executive Women. Working with women can also be challenging and difficult. Women, in general, are more competitive and sensitive by nature. My first experience working with women was not what I thought it would be, however. Having worked with all-male management teams in the restaurant industry, I was excited to work with women, particularly women my age. I thought I would find a camaraderie that I had never experienced before. I thought that for the first time in my life I would actually be able to make friends at work and to have allies in making the working environment an ethical and successful place. What I found, however, was the complete opposite. Women can be spiteful and will go out of their way to get ahead, even at the expense of their female colleagues. With my advanced education and 6 years of management experience, I thought I could share my knowledge, both professional and personal, with the people I worked with on a team. Synergy is the success of any team. Having female coworkers pit themselves against one another rather than joining forces was discouraging to me. Women have had to work so hard to establish themselves in all areas of business. It is sickening that we fought so hard and for so long (although we still have such a long way to go) just to compete with each other, in my opinion. In 5 years I hope to be working in managerial human resources. I enjoy my current finance position and would like to find a way to incorporate this experience into a human resource career. Human resources has so many functions, and the technical/analytical side of it is of great interest to me. I believe that human resources is a growing © 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.

204


and developing field that will evolve as the business world of today and tomorrow grows. My extensive background in all areas of business strengthens my understanding of how a corporation as a whole succeeds. It is for this reason that I believe I can benefit any human resources department or team. To all the women out there—young and old, educated and not, professionals and students—I want to say the following: To truly rise into the next era of business, we must stick together for what is right, not only for the people we work with and the company we work for, but for each other.


Index

Page numbers followed by f indicate figures; t indicates tables. Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) Program, 145–46 Affiliative speech, gender differences, 16 Affirmative action policy, Hunter College, 10 Agentic qualities: society’s expectations in men, 42; in transactional leadership, 89; in transformational leadership, 91–92 Ambition, women bosses, 47–49 American civil rights law, Howard, Linda Gordon, 8–9 Americans with Disabilities Act, 33 Appearance: future research, 192; women in the workplace, 169 Applied skills, 139 Assertive speech, gender differences, 16–17 Association of Women’s Business Centers, 82 Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), 3 Barickman, Richard, sexual harassment policy and prevention, Hunter College, 11

Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART), San Francisco, 3 Bentsen, Lloyd, Senator, Howard, Linda Gordon and, 4–6 Bitch on wheels, women bosses, 39–40, 54 Body language, gender differences, 18 Broker role, in CVF, 102–7 Brown v. Board of Education, 137 Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 126 Career academies, 143–44 Career-and-family managers, 175 Career choices, work-life balance, 31–38 Career preparation programs: discussion and recommendations, 146–50; high schools, 137–52; trajectory implications of college programs, 140–42 Career-primary managers, 175 Career woman, term as derogatory stereotype, 54 Carter, Jimmy: Howard, Linda Gordon, 8; women in national service program, 7 Center for Women’s Business Research, 82


206

Index

Change agent stage, in corporate culture, 170 Coercing, as a classic power base, 45 College: career preparation and, 139–40; career-trajectory implications of, 140–42 Committed intensive managers, 103–4 Communal qualities: society’s expectations in women, 42; in transactional leadership, 89; in transformational leadership, 91–92 Communication: gender differences in, 15–30; gendered patterns of, 18–19; gendered styles in the workplace, 20–26; perceptions of gendered patterns, 20–21; strategies for a woman in a man’s world, 26–27 Competence seeker stage, in corporate culture, 170 Competing values framework (CVF), 102–6, 102f; controlling work and tracking details, 105f; feminist theory and, 109–10; hypereffective woman, 113–14; managing change and persuasion, 107f; mentoring and facilitating interactions, 106f; motivating employees and setting goals, 104f; research objectives and results, 110–13, 111t; traits associated with, 111t; transformational and transactional roles, 110t Compliant novice stage, in corporate culture, 170 Conceptual producers, 104–5 Concrete ceiling, 177–83 Conflict resolution, gender differences in communication, 23 Conscientization, 189 Contextual factors, in gendered patterns of communication, 19 Contrapower sexual harassment, 56–57, 120 Coordinator role, in CVF, 102–7 Coping mechanisms, sexual harassment, 124–25 Copyright Act of 1976, Howard, Linda Gordon, 5

Decision-making, gender differences in communication, 23 Developing Mass Transit Systems (UMTA), Howard, Linda Gordon, 3 Director role, in CVF, 102–07 Discrimination, minority women as entrepreneurs, 78 Double workloads, dual roles for women, 180 Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center, 138 Education: anecdotal findings, 185; exemplary programs, 142–46; female administrators and, 176; gender differences in qualification for entrepreneurship, 74; minority women as entrepreneurs, 78; salary categories and, 138–39 Ellison v. Brady, 121 Employment discrimination complaints, Howard, Linda Gordon, 12–13 Empowerment: changes in leadership context, 59–60; interventions, suggestions and support for entrepreneurs, 79–82; what organizations can do for women, 58–59; what women can do for themselves, 57–58 Entrepreneurship: career aspirations in, 71–79; comparative approach, 70–71, 70f; internet resources, 82; interventions, suggestions and support for women, 79–82; minority women, 76–78, 77–78t, 77f; women in, 67–85 Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, 80 Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, New York City, Howard, Linda Gordon, 12 Ethnicity, career preparation and, 139–40 Evaluation procedures, gender differences in, 181–82 Evidence course, Howard, Linda Gordon, 7


Index Expectations of others, women in the workplace, 168–69 Expertise, as a classic power base, 45 External barriers, workplace success, 178 Facial expressions, gender differences, 18 Facilitator role, in CVF, 102–7 Family. See Work/family balance Federal Rules of Evidence, amendment to, Howard, Linda Gordon, 4 Female-friendly organizations, leadership in, 51–52 Female leaders. see Women bosses Female-owned business by type, 70f Feminist, term as derogatory stereotype, 54, 171 Feminist competing values leadership, 101–18 Feminist identification: future research, 192; self-realization and, 187–89 Feminist theory, 106–8; CVF roles and, 109–10; research objectives and results, 110–13, 111t; transformational and transactional roles, 110t Financing: to empower women entrepreneurs, 80–81; for minority women entrepreneurs, 79; women entrepreneurs and, 73–74 Followers, influences on power, 45 Gender-based discrimination, Howard, Linda Gordon, 6–7 Gender differences: career preparation and, 139–40; communication, 15–30; communication strategies for a woman in a man’s world, 26–27; communication styles in the workplace, 20–26; entrepreneurship, 70–71; law school, 1970s, 2; in mediating influence, 46; nonverbal communication, 18; perceptions of women leaders, 43–44; potential

207

solutions, 189–92; race and, in ownership of firms, 77t; role stereotypes, 42; serving as a supervisor or leader, 24–26; versus status differences, 18, 19; in transactional leadership, 89; in transformational leadership, 91; U.S. firms, 68–69t Gender harassment, 120 Gender ratios, in organizational culture, 169–72 Gender-role expectations, interaction with leadership-role expectations, 89–90, 92–93 Gender-role socialization, 160–64 Gender stereotypes, 160–64 Glass ceiling, 177–83 Great man theory, 40 Growth intention, women entrepreneurs, 72–73 Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 121 Herman, Alexis, Women’s Bureau Director, Carter Administration, 8 High School Puente Project, 144–45 Historical women leaders, 87, 93–96 Hostile environment harassment, 55, 120 Humane Letters Requirement, Tempe Preparatory Academy, 142–43 Hunter College of the City University of New York, Howard, Linda Gordon, 8, 10–11 Hypereffective woman, CVF and, 113–14 Identity, development and formation, 156 Independent Women’s Forum, 50 India, visit by Howard, Linda Gordon, 9 Influence strategies, 44–46; power versus gender in mediation of, 46 Information, as a classic power base, 45 Innovator role, in CVF, 102–7 Interdepartmental Task Force on Women, Howard, Linda Gordon, 8 Internal barriers, workplace success, 178


208

Index

Interviewing, law firms, 1970s, 2–3 Israel, sexual harassment, 133–36 Japan, visit by Howard, Linda Gordon, 9 Joan of Arc, 93 Job applications, gender differences in communication, 22 Job-gender context, in sexual harassment model, 122–23, 123f Johnson, Lady Byrd, 4 Kovner, Victor, Law Department, City of New York, 11–13 Krim, Arthur, 4 Law career, work-life balance, 31–38 Law Department, City of New York, Howard, Linda Gordon, 11–13 Laws and regulations: to empower women entrepreneurs, 80; sexual harassment in Israel, 133–36 Leadership: anecdotal findings, 184–86; changes in context, 59–60; definition of role, 41; education and female administrators, 176; female-friendly organizations, 51–52; feminist competing values, 101–18; follower-focused, 52; gender differences in communication, 24–26; gender differences in perceptions, 43–44; historical concept, 93–96; identification in masculine terms, 52; participative, 50–52; perceptions and requirements for success, 40–42; personality characteristics of women, 172–77; problems unique to females, 53–57; sexual harassment and, 55–57; tokenism and preferential selection, 54–55; traditional portrayal, 41, 52; transactional versus transformational, 49–50, 87–89; which style is better, 96–97; women and, 87–99; women supporting women, 201–4 Leadership-role expectations, interaction with gender-role expectations, 89–90, 92–93

Legislation course, Howard, Linda Gordon, 7 Legitimate, as a classic power base, 45 Maternity leave, 33 Mentoring, for women entrepreneurs, 81 Mentor role: in CVF, 102–7; selfrealization and, 187 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 120–21 Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), 82 Minority women: as entrepreneurs, 76–78, 77–78t, 77f; sexual harassment and women of color, 125–26; special programs for entrepreneurs, 82 Monitor role, in CVF, 102–7 Motherly type: power dynamics, 45; women bosses, 39–40, 54 Motivation, for women entrepreneurs, 71–72 Myths and perceptions, for women entrepreneurs, 76 National Association of Women Business Owners, 82 National Women’s Business Council, 82 Networks, for women entrepreneurs, 75, 81–82 New York City Commission on Human Rights, Howard, Linda Gordon, 12 New Zealand Human Rights Commission, Howard, Linda Gordon, 9 Nixon, Richard M., impeachment and resignation, 5 Nonverbal communication, gender differences, 18 Norton, Eleanor Holmes, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Carter Administration, 8 Ohio Democratic Women, Howard, Linda Gordon, 7–8 Ohio State University College of Law (now Mortiz College of Law), Howard, Linda Gordon, 6–7


Index Online Women’s Business Center, 82 Open-adaptive managers, 105–6 Opt-out revolution, 182–83 Organizational climate: prevention and investigation of sexual harassment, 126–27; in sexual harassment model, 122–23, 123f; women in the culture, 169–72 Organizational power, 44; shifting environments and conceptions of leadership, 52 Organizational theories, sexual harassment, 121–22 Paludi, Michele, sexual harassment policy and prevention, Hunter College, 11 Paralinguistic cues, gender differences, 18 Participative leadership, 50–52 Part-time employment, 34–37 Payton, Sallyanne, 3 Perceptions: anecdotal findings, 186; gendered patterns of communication, 20–21; for women entrepreneurs, 76; women leaders, 43–44 Personal expectations, women in the workplace, 165–68 Personality factors, 153–200; future research, 192; women in leadership and management, 172–77; women in the workplace, 164–69 Plaster versus plasticity, 155 Power and influence, 44–46; follower influences, 45; men’s greater flexibility, 45–46; power versus gender, 46 Power from, 44 Power over, 44 Power to, 44 Preferential selection, female leaders, 54–55 Pregnancy, effects on work-life balance, 32–33 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case, 26 Private law practice and consulting, Howard, Linda Gordon, 13 Producer role, in CVF, 102–7

209

Qualification, for women entrepreneurs, 74 Quality of life, 1–13 Queen Elizabeth I, 94–96 Quid pro quo harassment, 55, 120 Racial differences, law school, 1970s, 2 Rape shield law, Howard, Linda Gordon, 4–5 Reasonable woman standard, in sexual harassment cases, 121 Referent, as a classic power base, 45 Reward, as a classic power base, 45 Robb, Chuck, 4 Role conflict, 179–81 Role incongruity, 42–44 Role overload, 179–81 Salary categories, education levels and, 138–39 Salary negotiation, gender differences in communication, 22 Self-realization, feminist identification and, 187–89 Sexual coercion, 120 Sexual harassment: consequences, 123–24; coping, 124–25; court decisions, 120–21; definition and types, 120; female leaders, 55–57; future research, 192; Hunter College policy and prevention, 10–11; integrated process model, 122–23, 123f; Israel, 133–36; prevention and investigation in the organization, 126–27; why it occurs, 121–22; women of color, 125–26; workplace, 119–32 The Sexual Harassment Handbook (Howard), 13 Shalala, Donna: Hunter College, 8, 10; Urban Development Secretary, Carter Administration, 8 Slagle, Orin, Dean, 6 Smiling, gender differences, 18 Socialization: future research, 192; in gendered patterns of communication, 18–19


210

Index

Sociocultural theories, sexual harassment, 121–22 Soft skills, 139 Sowle, Kathryn D., 6 Speaking while female, 15 Stereotypy: female managers, 175; feminist and career woman as derogatory terms, 54; future research, 192; gender differences in communications, 17; gender-role, 42; gender-role socialization and, 160–64; leadership, 41–42; perceptions of gendered communication patterns, 20–21 Supervisory role, gender differences in communication, 24–26 Talkativeness, gender differences, 17 Theodora, 93–94 Tokenism, 54–55, 169 Traits, gender-role stereotypes, 42–44 Trait theory, 154 Transactional leadership, 49–50, 87–89, 96–97, 110t Transformational leadership, 49–50, 87–91, 96–97, 110t University of Virginia (UVA), Law School, 1–2 Unwanted sexual attention, 120 Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), Howard, Linda Gordon, 3 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 3 U.S. Information Agency (USIA), sponsor of Howard, Linda Gordon, 9 U.S. Senate, Howard, Linda Gordon, 4–5

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA): Howard, Linda Gordon, 8; internet resources, 82 Venture funding, obtaining for women entrepreneurs, 80 Verbal behaviors, gender differences, 17 Weddington, Sarah, Assistant to the President, Carter Administration, 8 Women bosses, 39–65; empowerment of, 57–60; how they measure up, 47–53; problems unique to, 53–57 Women in national service proposal, President Jimmy Carter, 7 Women-led businesses, 67–85; U.S. perspective, 67–69, 68–69t Women’s Business Ownership Act of 1988, 80 Women’s Small Business Ownership Program Act of 2006, 80 Women’s treatment of other women: anecdotal findings, 186–87; support in the workplace, 201–4 Work experience, gender differences in qualification for entrepreneurship, 74 Work/family balance: female leaders, 53–54; role in women as entrepreneurs, 74–75 Work-life balance, 31–38 Workplace issues: anecdotal findings, 183–87; gendered communication styles, 20–26; women supporting women, 201–4 Workplace success, barriers for women, 177–83 Wright, Bill, 4



Michele A. Paludi, PhD, is the author or editor of 27 college textbooks and more than 140 scholarly articles and conference presentations on sexual harassment, the psychology of women, gender, and sexual harassment and victimization. Her book Ivory Power: Sexual Harassment on Campus (1990), received the 1992 Myers Center Award for Outstanding Book on Human Rights in the United States. Dr. Paludi served as Chair of the U.S. Department of Education’s Subpanel on the Prevention of Violence, Sexual Harassment, and Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Higher Education; she was one of six scholars in the United States to be selected for this subpanel. She was also a consultant to and a member of former New York State Governor Mario Cuomo’s Task Force on Sexual Harassment. She is the series editor for Praeger’s Women and Psychology Series. Dr. Paludi serves as an expert witness for court proceedings and administrative hearings on sexual harassment. She has had extensive experience in conducting training programs and investigations of sexual harassment and other equal employment opportunity issues for businesses and educational institutions. In addition, Dr. Paludi has held faculty positions at Franklin & Marshall College, Kent State University, Hunter College, Union College, and Union Graduate College, where she directs the human resource management certificate program. She teaches the following courses in the School of Management: Foundations of Human Resource Management, Managing Human Resources, and International Human Resource Management. Susan Basow is Charles A. Dana Professor of Psychology at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, where she helped found the women’s studies program and chaired the psychology department for 6 years. Dr. Basow has taught courses on the psychology of gender since 1974 and


212


is the author of the textbook Gender: Stereotypes and Roles. A licensed psychologist, she also has published the results of many of her studies of gender issues in course evaluations and of women and their bodies. She has been a member of the executive committee of the Society for the Psychology of Women since 2000. Alan Belasen is an associate professor of management at the State University of New York–Empire State College and chairman of the MBA program. For more than 15 years Professor Belasen has taught leadership and organizational communication topics in the Department of Communication, University at Albany. Professor Belasen has also taught leadership and human resource management topics in the MBA program of Union Graduate College in Schenectady, New York. Professor Belasen has provided management development consulting and training to government, nonprofit, business, and academic institutions. His books include Leading the Learning Organization: Communication and Competencies for Managing Change (2000) and The Theory and Practice of Corporate Communication: A Competing Values Perspective (2007). Nicole T. Buchanan, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. Her research examines the intersection of race and gender in workplace and academic harassment, racialized sexual harassment, coping and resilience among women of color, and gendered-based bullying among adolescents. Her work appears in scholarly journals such as Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law; Psychology of Women Quarterly; Journal of Vocational Behavior; Journal of Occupational Health Psychology; Women and Therapy; and Black Women, Gender and Families. Dr. Buchanan has also contributed chapters to books addressing harassment and multiculturalism, such as P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the Company of Men: Re-Discovering the Links between Sexual Harassment and Male Domination, C. M. West (Ed.), Violence in the Lives of Black Women: Battered, Black, and Blue, and A. R. Gillem & C. A. Thompson (Eds.), Biracial Women in Therapy: Between the Rock of Gender and the Hard Place of Race. Dr. Buchanan was also the 2007 recipient of the Association of Women in Psychology’s Women of Color Award for empirical research publications that ‘‘contribute significantly to the understanding of the psychology of women of color’’ and Michigan State University’s 2007 Excellence in Diversity Award in the category of Individual Emerging Progress for outstanding research and teaching accomplishments in the areas of diversity, pluralism, and social justice. Emily Buenn is finishing her studies in engineering management at the University of Karlsruhe, Germany. She holds an MBA from Union Graduate College in Schenectady, New York. During her studies she did several



213

internships and supported freelance business consultants through work at a student consultancy, where she worked as a freelance consultant herself. Joan Chrisler, PhD, is a psychology professor at Connecticut College. She has published extensively on the psychology of women and gender and is especially known for her work on women’s health, menstruation, weight, and body image. She has served as president of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research, the Society for the Psychology of Women, the Association for Women in Psychology, the New England Psychological Association, and the Connecticut State Conference of the American Association of University Professors. She recently completed a 5-year term as editor of Gender Roles: A Journal of Research and is editor or coeditor of seven books, including Women over 50: Psychological Perspectives (2007), From Menarche to Menopause: The Female Body in Feminist Therapy (2004), Arming Athena: Career Strategies for Women in Academe (1998), and Lectures on the Psychology of Women (2008). Sarah K. Clapp earned her BS in behavioral sciences and leadership from the U.S. Air Force Academy and her MA in psychology (with a concentration in social psychology) from Connecticut College. She is currently serving as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. Her research has focused on gender roles, leadership, and sexual harassment. Karen Duff-McCall is a psychology student at Boise State University (BSU) and works with Dr. Will Schweinle in the BSU Social Interaction Lab. Her research interests include empathic accuracy, women’s leadership, and abnormal psychology. Robert Edelman holds a BA from Union College in Schenectady, New York. He works for New York Sports Clubs and has many passions; when he is not writing he enjoys creating art and going to the beach. Some of his work can be seen in Schenectady and Long Beach Long Island, New York. Nancy Miller Frank, PhD, is an assistant professor at the State University of New York–Empire State College MBA program. She has also taught at the School of Management, SUNY-Albany. Dr. Frank has extensive experience in the area of personality traits assessment. Her consulting and research activities focus on the relationship between personality trait profiles and managerial competencies. Ayelet Giladi, PhD, is a pioneer and recognized expert on the harassment of young children in Israel. Dr. Giladi, a professor at Kibbutz College, teaches her students how to recognize sexual harassment of children, conduct qualitative research, and report on the phenomenon. In addition, she


214


conducts research on the issue, consults with a variety of organizations, and conducts training about sexual harassment at an early age. She has authored two prevention programs for use with children ages 4–7 and 11–13, entitled Getting Along and Getting Along in Big, which are widely used in kindergartens as well as public and private schools throughout Israel. She is the chairwoman of the Voice of the Child Association: Prevention of Sexual Harassment Among Young Children. Clients served by the association are young children with visual impairments, children from various religious backgrounds, and new immigrant children, especially from Ethiopia. She is the author of a book chapter and several articles in Israeli professional journals about the sexual harassment of young children. She has been featured on Israeli television, radio programs, and newscasts and in Israeli newspaper articles. Dr. Giladi has spoken about sexual harassment at an early age to the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and at international conferences in the United States and England. She trains family judges, physicians, nurses, psychologists, educators and school administrators, social workers, parents, and children about the phenomenon. Dr. Giladi has a doctorate in sociology education from England ARU university, a master’s degree in sociology and education, and a bachelor’s degree in education. She has been an activist in developing awareness about sexual harassment at early ages since 1996. Beatrice Hall is a clinical professor and associate dean in the School of Education at Union Graduate College in Schenectady, New York. Her responsibilities include the admission, advisement, instruction, and supervision of prospective teachers in the college’s intensive, 1-year master’s program in the art of teaching, as well as close work with public school teachers and administrators in the Albany capital district. As a clinical professor, Ms. Hall also teaches classes in pedagogy, assessment, organization of schools, and literacy. For these duties, she draws on more than 20 years of classroom teaching in grades 4–12. She is currently completing her doctoral work in curriculum and instruction at State University of New York at Albany, where she graduated summa cum laude in English; she also holds a master of education administration degree from Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. Her research interests include literacy skill building for adolescents, instruction to support critical thinking, and models for mentoring teachers. Linda Gordon Howard is an attorney and consultant in workplace diversity issues, including sexual harassment. She has spent the last 30 years successfully practicing, advising, counseling, and teaching in the areas of employment discrimination and sexual harassment law. Ms. Howard has trained thousands of employees in how to understand and comply with



215

the difficult and confusing laws regarding sexual harassment. Her original and proven methods communicate the logic behind the laws and illustrate how to deal with sexual harassment as it happens. Her book, The Sexual Harassment Handbook (2007), is a practical, street-smart guide for working men and women. Ms. Howard received her law degree from the University of Virginia Law School and her undergraduate degree from Reed College. She is a former law professor at Ohio State University, member of the White House staff, college legal counsel, and senior attorney for the City of New York. She serves as a trustee of Reed College and a director of the nonprofit group A More Perfect Union, Inc., and she leads transformational programs for Landmark Education. Ms. Howard practices law in New York City. Jennifer L. Martin is the head of the English department at a public alternative high school for at-risk students in Michigan and holds a PhD in educational leadership. Dr. Martin is also a lecturer at Oakland University, where she teaches in the Departments of Educational Leadership and Women’s Studies. She is a past cochair of the Girls’ Studies Interest Group for the National Women’s Studies Association. Her research interests include peer sexual harassment, feminist identification, teaching for social justice, and the at-risk student. Presha E. Neidermeyer, PhD, CPA, is an associate professor of accounting at West Virginia University’s College of Business and Economics. She has published numerous articles in behavioral accounting, focusing on the way that gender and culture affect decision making. Her nonresearch activities include involving business students in philanthropic activities, harnessing the students’ unique skills to assist various African charities in their quest to resolve the AIDS pandemic. William Schweinle, PhD, is an assistant professor of quantitative psychology at Boise State University. He has published several research articles on men’s empathic accuracy, empathic bias, and the maltreatment of women, including inter-partner aggression and sexual harassment. Carrie Turco is currently completing her MBA and certificate in human resource management at Union Graduate College. Her career goals include becoming a director or vice president of human resources in the private sector. She enjoys photography, tennis, and volunteering for the St. Jude Children’s Hospital. Michelle Wildgrube has been a principal attorney at Cioffi Slezak Wildgrube P.C. since 2004, and has been with the firm since 1999. Before


216


joining the firm, Ms. Wildgrube worked for a general practice firm that provided a broad foundation for her law practice, which now concentrates on estate planning and administration, corporate and business law, and real estate. Ms. Wildgrube holds a BA in English from Rutgers College and a JD from the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law. Krystle C. Woods, MA, is a clinical doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. Her research examines the influence of perpetrator race on sexual harassment outcomes, racialized sexual harassment, and depression in African-American women. Ms. Woods was the 2005 recipient of the Michigan State University Enrichment Fellowship ‘‘recognizing academic achievement, research goals, contribution to a diverse educational community, and a record of overcoming obstacles.’’


The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce. Volume 1: Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium

The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce. Volume 2: Obstacles and the Identity Juggle

The Psychology of Women at Work Three Volumes : Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce (Women's Psychology)

The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce, Volume 3, Self, Family, and Social Affects (Women's Psychology)

Radiation Test Challenges for the New Millennium

Police Psychology: A New Specialty and New Challenges for Men and Women in Blue (Forensic Psychology)

Hemingway and Women: Female Critics and the Female Voice

America at Work: Choices and Challenges

Literacy for the new millennium

Holography for the new millennium

Higher Education in Transition: The Challenges of the New Millennium

Ethics for the New Millennium

O for the New Millennium

Literacy for the New Millennium

The Myth of Work-Life Balance: The Challenge of Our Time for Men, Women and Societies

The Myth of Work-Life Balance: The Challenge of Our Time for Men, Women and Societies