'Hl

\
1

    

llW‘llll‘ill!

x
i

ilHlllWWWlitllMlll‘llH

 

   

_cnoooo

SITY LIBRARIES

W l ll l\\lll\ll\j\llll\| NM

31293014

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

M l ill

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Gender ratios and networks: A comparative
study of two organizations

presented by

Caroline T. Ethington

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. Communication

 

 

degree in

QtQtacHQ MMQ

Major professor

Date to- s) 45’

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout tron your rooord.

TO AVOID FINES rotum on or botoro dot. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAnAfflnmtlvoActtorVEquol Opportunitylmtltwon
mm:

' _. .._._ ___ V . , # fl iii, « a“

GENDER RATIOS AND NETWORKS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO
ORGANIZATIONS

By

Caroline T. Ethington

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1995

ABSTRACT

GENDER RATIOS IN ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO
ORGANIZATIONS

By

Caroline T. Ethington

In Men and Women of the Corporation, Kanter proposed that women, as tokens,
are socially isolated from the informal networks of and suggested that token dynamics
would be present for male tokens as well. Research in this area has yielded conflicting
results, partly because it has focused on gender ratios and ignored the impact of formal
position power. This thesis remedies this situation and examines two organizations:

1) gender balanced and balanced gender distribution across levels and 2) female-majority
and females concentrated in upper level positions. Data were collected from self-report
questionnaires filled out by organizational members. Using the STRUCTURE network
analysis software program, density between and among gender groups and prominence
indices were calculated. Differences for men and women in network integration and
network prominence were hypothesized. Results indicate that 1) men and women are
equally integrated in one another’s networks and are equally prominent in the gender
balanced organization and 2) there is some support that men’s and women’s networks are

segregated and women are more prominent than men in the female-majority organization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Few major projects are done in isolation and this thesis is certainly no exception. I
am deeply indebted to the members of my committee, Dr. Alicia Marshall, Dr. J. David
Johnson and Dr. Linnea Van Dyne, for their guidance and support during the long process
of producing a thesis. Each member provided unique contributions, for which I am
extremely grateful. I am also deeply indebted to the members of my family; without their
love and encouragement I would never have made it this far. To Eric, your love and
patience made all the difference. Because of you I have been able to pursue my dreams.
To Mom and Dad, you have always supported me in my endeavors. Without those many

hours of child care, I would never even have written one word.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number
List of Tables ................................................................................................ v
List of Figures ............................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2. Guiding Literature and Hypotheses .............................................. 4
Chapter 3. Methods/Analysis ........................................................................ 24
Chapter 4. Results ........................................................................................ 43
Chapter 5. Summary and Conclusions ........................................................... 48
List of References .......................................................................................... 57

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page number

Table 1. Gender Distribution by Location for the Political Lobbying

Group ....................................................................................... 40
Table 2. Hierarchical Distribution by Gender for Government Agency

and Program Project ................................................................. 41
Table 3. Density of Communication by Gender in Gender Balanced

Organization ............................................................................. 44
Table 4. Density of Communication by Gender in Female-majority

Organization ............................................................................. 45
Table 5. Differences Between Men and Women in Prominence in Gender

Balanced Organization ............................................................. 46
Table 6. Differences Between Men and Women in Prominence in Female

Majority Organization .............................................................. 47

LIST OF FIGURES
Page Number

Figure l. 2 X 2 Density Matrix ........................................................................ 42

vi

INTRODUCTION

Imagine the following scenario: Pat is considering two job offers, one from an
organization where women compose the majority group and occupy most formal positions
of authority and one from an organization where there are roughly equal numbers of men
and women and formal positions of authority are equally distributed. Pat is anxious to
have informal communication contacts with both men and women and enjoys being sought
out by other organization members. Everything else being equal, which organization
should Pat choose?

If you answered “it depends on Pat’s gender,” you are on the right track. It seems
intuitive that if Pat were male he would avoid the former organization (female-majority),
reasoning that as a minority group member it would be diflicult for him to develop
informal contacts with the majority group. If Pat were female, she might reason that
which organization she chooses would make no difference; in either case she would not be
in the minority and would be able to develop informal contacts with both men and women
easily. However, one of the claims I will make in this thesis is that in an organization
where women are the majority and hold the majority of positions of formal authority,
men’s and women’s communication networks will be segregated from one another, due to
the tendency of majority groups to exclude minority groups. As a result of the

segregation of men’s and women’s networks, women will be more highly sought after, a

2

reflection of their power. Therefore, what’s good for Patricia may not be good for
Patrick!

In this thesis I will examine the integration of men’s and women’s communication
networks and men’s and women’s network prominence in organizations with differing
gender ratios and distributions of formal authority. Integration refers to the extent to
which men’s and women’s networks include contacts with members of the opposite
gender. Prominence refers to the extent to which an individual is the recipient of
communication contacts. Informal network communication refers to the communication
relationships that emerge through the activities of an organization. The impact of gender
ratios on men’s and women’s communication patterns in organizations is an important
area of study as gender ratios in organizations shift away from male-majority due to
demographic trends.

In order to explore the relationship of gender, gender ratios, and gender
distribution of formal authority to network integration and network prominence, I will
examine an organization that is gender-balanced and an organization that has a female
majority. Specifically, I will perform a secondary analysis of data from organizations with
the following gender ratios and distributions of formal authority: 1) gender-balanced
(approximately 50% male, 50% female with males and females equally distributed through
the formal hierarchy) and 2) female-majority (75% or more female with females
concentrated in upper level positions). In condition one, I will argue that because there is
no majority group, both in terms of gender and formal positions of authority, men and

women’s informal communication networks will be integrated and three will be no

3

differences between men’s and women’s prominence. I will also argue that because
minority group members are isolated from the majority group’s informal communication
networks and because network position is related to power, in condition two men and
women will be segregated from one another and women will be more prominent.

I will utilize network analysis as a research methodology in order to tap into the informal
communication networks of these organizations.

I have organized this thesis into four major sections: 1) Guiding Literature and
Hypotheses, 2) Methods/Analysis, 3) Results and 4) Summary and Conclusions. In the
following section I will highlight work force demographic history and trends that provide
some background and justification for the importance of my research questions. I will
then review the literature examining men’s and women’s interaction patterns in
organizations of differing gender ratios. This will lead to a discussion of the concepts of
integration and network prominence. The section will culminate with my hypotheses with
respect to the relationship between gender, gender ratios in organizations and gender

distribution of hierarchical levels to network integration and prominence.

GUIDING LITERATURE AND HY POTHESES

Demographic shifts in the U.S. work force

In the early 19005, just over 21% of the work force was composed of women.
Currently the rate of participation in the work force is nearly double that at about 40%. A
number of factors have contributed to this increase of women in the work force. In the
19605, the feminist movement brought about great social change in terms of beliefs about
appropriate roles for women. A steadily declining fertility rate has enabled more women
to work outside of the home. In addition to social change, the rise in single-parent
families and the increasing need for dual-income families in order to maintain reasonable
living standards led to the economic necessity of working women (Daily, 1993).

Until fairly recently, women were considered to be a reserve work force who
either occupied undesirable jobs (in terms of either pay or status) or who worked in times
of crisis, such as war. Until the 19605, most women only held jobs while young or
unmarried. (Daily, 1993). Although women are now freer to pursue the career of their
choosing, the statistics are less than encouraging. Women are still concentrated in lower
level positions (Blau & Ferber, 1987; U.S. Department of Labor, 1979, 1984) and are
relatively underrepresented in positions of power G3rown, 1979; Dexter, 1985; Dipboye,

198-7).

5

Although the gap between what men and women earn has been closing, it still
remains significant. The annual earning ratio for women to men (adjusted for hours and
weeks) rose from 60% in 1971 to 74% in 1988 (Blau, 1992). Occupational differences
also narrowed in the 19705 and 19805 as women made inroads into traditionally male
managerial and professional jobs. The index of segregation fell fi'om 67% to 57% from
1970 to 1987 (Blau, 1992). This index measures the proportion of women who would
have to change jobs for the occupational distribution of men and women to be equal.
Summary

The dramatic changes in the demographic landscape in recent decades have made it
an exciting time to study communication pattern differences between men and women in
organizations. The future promises to be just as interesting. The percentage of women in
the work force is projected to increase from approximately 40% in 1989 to 50% by the
year 2000 (Nelson & Quick, 1992). As the number of educated women entering the work
force rises, men will increasingly have to relinquish their position of numerical majority in
organizations. The demographic trends of increased numbers of women in the work force
and greater numbers of women positions traditionally held by men all point to a need to
investigate the impact of more balanced and female majority gender ratios on
organizational communication.

Theoretical explanations for gender differences

Inequality between men and women in income and in upper level position

representation has prompted researchers to search for causes. Two types of general

explanations that have been investigated in the literature are: 1) actual differences in men’s

6

and women’s behavior on—the-job and 2) certain aspects of organizational systems and
structure impede women (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990).
Actaal differences in men’s and women’s belatvior

An actual differences explanation is grounded in the notion that men’s and
women’s behaviors in the workplace are actually different from one another and that these
differences lead to different outcomes for men and women in organizations. For example,
as a result of early socialization experiences, women may be less assertive than men, which
in turn might cause them to be less likely to lobby for plum assignments. A man might be
more likely to push for new assignments that could lead to greater upward mobility. It
should be noted that these differences are not necessarily inborn, but could be the result of
influences such as socialization or cultural values.

Communication behavior differences

Early research in the area of language uncovered differences between male and
female communication behavior, for example in terms of tentativeness (Lakoff, 1975),
interruptions (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Lakoff, 1975; Zimmerman & West, 1975) and
talkativeness (Brownell & Smith, 1973; Schultz et. a1, 1984). Smythe (1991) observed
that early research seemed to support stereotypical gender-based differences in
communication behavior, even though it was largely unsubstantiated empirically. She cites
critics (Kramer, 1974: Lakoff, 1973, 1975) who contended that previous research was
flawed and that observed differences were actually due to sex stereotyping.

In her extensive review of the contemporary gender and communication behavior

literature, Smythe cites many studies that contradict the gender differences viewpoint and

7

comments that “the persistence of gender-based stereotypes is almost as striking as the
absence of empirically documented differences in the communication of the sexes” (p.
205). She suggests that even though findings that support similarities in behaviors are
common, stereotypical descriptions of masculine and feminine behavior remain firmly
planted in both popular and scholarly literature. Smythe concludes “stereotypes about the
communication behaviors of men and women surpass actual differences in those behaviors
in number, direction and certainty (p. 205).”

Managerial filafior differences

In the somewhat narrower domain of organizational literature, research positing
that there are differences in managerial behavior has also yielded conflicting results. A
number of studies indicate that there are not differences between men and women
managers (Bartol, 1974, 1978; Inderlied & Powell, 1979; Wexley & Hunt, 1974).
However, a number of studies indicate that men exhibit stereotypical masculine traits in
their management roles while women exhibit feminine traits (Baird & Bradley, 1979;
Bartol & Butterfield, 1976; Welsh, 1979).

Powell (1990) reviewed research concerning four types of possible gender
differences: behavior, motivation, commitment and subordinate’s responses. Powell
found that there were no differences in men’s and women’s task-oriented behavior,
people-oriented behavior, effectiveness and subordinate’s responses to managers. While
he did find some ratings of managers in laboratory studies favored male managers, female

managers fare better than males in terms of their motivation level as managers. Powell

8

concluded that his review supports the “no differences view of sex differences in
managers” (p. 71).
Systemic Explaam

Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) concluded that “person-centered theory cannot
adequately explain differential treatment in management; other factors must also be
considered” (p. 202) and suggest systemic barriers as an alternative explanation. Research
investigating systemic baniers operates on the assumption that there are certain aspects of
the organization’s system and structure that hinder women from gaining the same status as
men. This explanation removes the onus from women and places it on the organization.
One systemic barrier that has received wide attention in the literature is women’s lack of
access to the informal communication network.

It is widely recognized that informal networks are vital to organizational
functioning. For example, network ties are an important source of information for
organizational members. Exclusion from influential networks can cause a lack of
organizational knowledge and can make it difficult for women to form alliances, which in
turn can be associated with a lack of mobility (Ibarra, 1993). Yet, one of the most
frequently reported obstacles faced by women in organizations is lack of access to the
informal network (See Ibarra, 1993 for review). Limited network access can ultimately
affect women’s upward mobility (Brass, 1985).

Informgcommynication network

The informal communication network is the system of communication relationships

that emerges through the organization’s activities. Research that taps into the informal

9

communication network is obtained using network analysis techniques. The basic purpose
of network analysis is to detennine interaction patterns that define organizational
communication structure; its focus is on who talks to whom (links) as opposed to
attributes of individuals (e. g. attitudes).

Proponents of network analysis cite several reasons for adopting a network
approach to organizational communication research. The core belief of network analysis
is that the “causal motor behind what people feel, believe and do lies in the pattern of
relations between actors in a situation as opposed to the attributes of individual actors”
(Burt, 1991). Network analysis does not rely on individuals' perceptions of their
environment, but rather examines relationships that develop amongst individuals (Miller,
1975). Lastly, it explores informal communication relationships that emerge as a result of
the organization’s activities as opposed to the formally prescribed communication flow
(Monge & Eisenberg, 1987).

Summary

Lack of access to the informal communication network is a systemic barrier that
can have negative implication for women’s success in organizations. However, it is
important to realize that this general finding is based primarily on research conducted on
“typical” organizations--men compose the majority group and hold the formal positions of
power (Irons & Moore, 1985; Kanter, 1977; Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Miller, Labovitz &
Fry, 1975). Kanter argued that lack of network access should be seen in the broader
context of minority and majority group dynamics. Historically, women have been the

minority in organizations and have suffered social isolation as a result of the majority

10

group exaggerating differences. As demographics in organizations are projected to
change, it is important to analyze organizations with differing gender ratios.
Gender ratios and informal communication patterns

Kanter’s Men and Women of the Corporation, (1977) was a pivotal work in that it
suggested that the proportion of organizational members who are women has a bearing on
women’s ability to achieve a status similar to men. She called attention to the
organizational dynamics involving women as the minority group and theorized that men
would experience the same dynamics when in the minority. Her ideas about numerical
imbalance provided the impetus for this thesis.

In the following sections I will provide detail on the literature examining men’s and
women’s informal network communication in organizations with differing gender ratios. I
will begin with Kanter’s work on tokenism and numerical imbalance. Next I will detail
F airhurst and Snavely’s (1983) research on male tokens. Lastly, I will discuss a study
done by Brass (1985) who looked at an organization that was roughly balanced with
respect to gender. As part of my review of Brass, I will discuss his conceptualization of
network integration and then propose my own.

Tokenism and mega] imbzfla_nc_e

In an extensive field study examining men‘s and women's networks in a large sales
organization, Kanter (1977) developed the theory of numerical imbalance. Kanter claimed
that the successful integration of an organizational member who is a minority relative to
the work group majority is inversely related to the imbalance of majority to minority

members (minority groups can be defined as a function of race, ethnicity, gender).

II

The term token refers to members of the minority group and implies a heightened
visibility. Tokens are obviously different from majority group members and as a result are
subject to intense scrutiny. Being a member of the minority group increases the visibility
of tokens which in turn causes performance pressures--pressures that are uniquely applied
to tokens. Another consequence of being in the minority is that majority group members
exaggerate differences between themselves and tokens which results in greater boundaries
between the two groups and the isolation of tokens fiom informal networks.

Kanter's research was conducted on an organization where women were the
minority group. Her findings imply that the plight of women in organizations can be
improved through structural change as opposed to individual level change. Kanter’s work
removed the causal impetus from women. Women did not need to change themselves but
rather organizations needed to take steps to increase the number of female employees.

As the term numerical imbalance implies, equilibrium will be reached once the
number of men and women are balanced into more equal proportions. A numerical shift
removes the uniqueness of tokens which in turn reduces token dynamics. However, if the
pendulum swings too far, and men are the minority group, Kanter suggests that male
tokens will be subject to the same pressures as female tokens. This assumption was not
supported by work done by Fairhurst and Snavely (1983). In the following section I will
detail the findings of F airhurst and Snavely, who examined an organization where females

were the majority group.

12

fine token dynamics

Fairhurst and Snavely (1983) argued that although uniqueness of tokens may be
highlighted by numbers, it is attenuated by power. They felt it was unclear whether
women's powerlessness stemmed solely from their numerical underrepresentation in the
organization or whether it was jointly determined by their societal status (relative to men)
and their token status. As they explained: "The attainment of power causes tokens to be
perceived more complexly by majority members, and it shifts the attention away from their
uniqueness to their ability to mobilize needed resources for the achievement of their own
goals or those of the majority members" (p. 293).

Fairhurst and Snavely (1983) sought to demonstrate that being male can offset
token dynamics by studying male tokens in two different nursing institutions They found
that the males did not experience increased performance pressure. They also conducted a
network analysis on topics that Kanter identified as topics of exclusion (i.e. personal
performance problems, political information) and did not find that the males were socially
isolated from the females.

Power differentials as a consequence of gender were offered as an explanation of
these results by F airhurst and Snavely (1983). The greater status afforded men in society
enabled the male tokens to leverage themselves by using their social status as a power
base. Unlike the women in Kanter’s study, the male tokens were not powerless to accept
the majority group's assertions of control and did not experience isolation from informal

networks.

l3

Fairhurst and Snavely’s work casts some doubts on Kanter’s assertion that male
tokens will have the same experiences as female tokens. It appeared that even if women
were the numerical majority they could not expect to reap the same rewards in terms of
network access as do men. What if there were equal numbers of women and men? A
study by Brass (1985) provided some insight on this issue.

Gender balanced interaction patterns

Brass (198 5) investigated men’s and women’s interaction patterns in a newspaper
publishing organization that was roughly balanced with respect to gender. Brass was
interested in the extent of integration of men’s and women’s networks and what effects
this nright have on perceptions of influence and promotions. Brass made the point that
network integration is relative; it may be more valuable to be integrated into some
networks and not others. Two individuals may have equal numbers of network links and
yet vary significantly in the amount of influence they wield. Brass operationalized network
integration as centrality and obtained centrality measures for individuals with respect to
the whole organization, subunit, and department as well as all female and all male
interaction networks.

Brass (1985) defined centrality as the minimum distance between a focal person
and all other persons in the pertinent reference group. The measure reflects both direct
and indirect contacts, so an individual who is highly central can reach others in a group
with a minimal number of linkages. Brass equated this with integration within a particular
group. An individual with a high centrality score has easy access to others in the group

and is therefore well-integrated into the group.

l4

Brass found that women were not as well-integrated into men’s networks,
including the organization’s dominant coalition and vice versa. However, in the
organization as a whole, women were more central to the interaction network than men.

It appeared that there were two informal, segregated interaction networks operating in the
organization. In particular, women were less central to the dominant coalition’s network
(which was all male).

Brass also obtained ratings of perceptions of influence and found that women were
rated as less influential than men. Perhaps most interestingly, Brass conducted a follow-up
that indicated a relationship between centrality in men’s and the dominant coalition’s
network and promotions. Brass concluded that women’s segregation from influential male
networks appeared to be preventing women fiom being promoted through the ranks of the
organization.

Density: A measure of network integration

Brass (1985) framed the results of his study in terms of network integration. The
term integration suggests that distinct parts (or groups) in an organization are combined to
form a unified system. This could apply to different types of groups such as functional
subunits, racial groups, and gender groups. As discussed previously, Brass
operationalized network integration in terms of network centrality which measures the
number of links between an individual and reference group members. While centrality is a
good representation of how easy it is for an individual to reach members of another group,

it does not reflect how well all the groups are incorporated into a whole. As Brass himself

15

pointed out “the resulting centrality measures are best interpreted in terms of ease of
access to others in the reference group” (italics mine, p.332).

The concept of density in a network analysis sense is a better match to the concept
of network integration as it captures the degree of interconnectedness within and among
particular groups. Density can be defined as a proportion that is calculated by dividing the
number of all ties occurring by the number of all possible ties (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982).
Density can be a characteristic of an entire network or it can be a characteristic of an
individual. It can be calculated at different levels such as the entire organization,
firnctional subunits or, in the case of this thesis, gender groups. Density measures can also
be calculated between and among groups, which is necessary to assess network
integration.

For example, I can think of density in terms of groups of women and groups of
men in an organization. I might discover that in a particular organization the informal
networks among men and women are extremely dense, that is there is a high degree of
communication among women as a group and a high degree of communication among
men as a group. However, without knowing the density between networks of men and
women, I have no basis for concluding whether men’s and women’s networks are
segregated from one another. If the density of relations between men and women is at a
comparable level to density of relations among men and among women, I would conclude
that gender groups are integrated into each others’ networks. However, if density of
relations between men and women is at a lower level than among men and women, I

would conclude that gender groups are segregated. Thus, higher density levels among

l6

gender groups than between gender groups suggests that men’s and women’s networks
are not unified but rather are segregated. No differences in density level among and
between suggest that gender groups are integrated.

Formal position in organization

Before I can speculate as to the relationship between gender, gender ratios and
density of relations between and among gender groups, it is necessary to address the
interaction of organizational members’ formal position. Two organizations could be very
similar in their gender ratios and be drastically different in terms of the distribution of
formal authority across gender groups. For example, Organization X might be described
as female-majority while at the same time the upper levels of the organization are held
primarily by males and Organization Y might be female majority both numerically and in
terms of upper level positions. Should we expect the density of informal network
communication between and among gender groups to be the same for X and Y? I return
to the research on numerical imbalance in organizations, examining it in the context of
distribution of formal authority.

Although Kanter (1977) found that female tokens in an organization where men
held positions of formal authority experienced social isolation, she did note that “power
wipes out sex...People who want to attach themselves to power may not even notice sex”
(p.201). Kanter’s observations were based on an organization where men occupied the
majority of formal positions of power (the few upper level women in the organization
occupied what Kanter termed “low-power situations” [p.203]) and thus her notion of

power for women was limited to informal sources of power.

17

Clearly, power can also be associated with formal position in the organizational
hierarchy. A primary source of influence in organizations is derived from position power,
which refers to the power obtained from formal position in the organization’s hierarchy
(Yukl, 1981). Position in the organization’s hierarchy is related to control over important
contingencies such as resources, rewards and punishment, and information. Formal
position is also related to network position; several studies (Lincoln & Miller, 1979;
Miller, 1986) have shown that high-status individuals have more extensive network
connections than low-status individuals.

The token dynamics for women that Kanter (1977) observed may have been
exacerbated by the exclusion of women from formal positions of authority in addition to
their minority status as females. Kanter defines token status in terms of social categories
(e. g., gender, race) however, it would seem logical that token status can also be affected
by formal position in the hierarchy.

It is instructive to now re-examine the findings of F airhurst and Snavely (1983) in
the context of formal position as well as numerical imbalance. Although the males were in
the numerical minority, they were at an equal level with the females in terms of the formal
hierarchy. Fairhurst and Snavely cited gender power differentials due to men’s status in
society as a possible explanation for the absence of male social isolation. Perhaps the lack
of difference in formal position between the men and the women contributed to the lack of
social isolation of the men.

A study conducted by Ibarra (1992) lends support to the idea that differences in

formal authority between men and women are related to the social isolation of women

18

from informal networks. Ibarra studied an organization that was roughly balanced with
respect to gender but where men occupied the majority of formal positions of authority.
Ibarra found that men were more central to the organization-wide network than women
but she also found that the effect of gender on centrality to the organization’s overall
network was completely mediated by differences in background characteristics such as
rank, education and department. In other words, men’s higher centrality was partially a
firnction of their higher rank in the organization.

Summa_ry

Kanter’s work has been viewed as a breakthrough in understanding the integration
of women into organizations because it took the emphasis away from “femaleness” to
issues of proportional imbalance. However, it appears that tokenism, by itself, cannot be
used to explain interaction patterns in organizations where men are not the majority group.
Formal position in the organization’s hierarchy must also be taken into account.

The research concerning token dynamics must be re-examined in light of Ibarra’s
finding that the effect of gender on centrality is mediated by characteristics such as rank
and department. It seems clear that in a more typical, male-dominated organization,
women will lack network access. Whether this is due solely to women’s token status or
women’s lower formal status in organizations, or a combination of the two is not clear.

Kanter’s theory suggests that a balanced organization will eradicate gender
differences in network access. This was not supported by Brass (1985) when he examined
an organization that was balanced with respect to gender and distribution of formal

authority. Ibarra (1992) examined an organization that was gender-balanced but also one

19

in which men held the majority of positions of formal authority. Like Brass, Ibarra found
differences in men’s and women’s centrality in a gender balanced organization, however,
the effect of gender on centrality was entirely mediated by differences in background
characteristics, rank and department.

In an organization where men are the minority group, Kanter’s theory suggests
that men will be socially isolated; Fairhurst and Snavely suggest that tokenism will be
eradicated for men due to men’s higher status in the societal hierarchy. However, neither
of these views takes the distribution of formal position into account. If women also hold
the majority of formal positions of authority, does the power afi‘orded women as a result
of their higher status on the organizational hierarchy re-employ token dynamics? Ibarra’s
research implies that it does.

In view of these conflicting findings, the following hypotheses are based on the
more general finding that hierarchical level is highly associated with network centrality
(Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1979; Miller, 1986) :

Hypothesis 1: In an organization that is balanced with respect to gender

composition and formal authority, the density of informal communication among

gender groups will equal the density of communication between gender groups.

Hypothesis 2: In an organization where women compose the majority and hold the

majority of formal positions of authority, the density of informal communication

among gender groups will be greater than the density of informal communication
between gender groups.

Power and informal network communication
By-products of the network segregation experienced by tokens is that they are not

privy to the sometimes crucial information that is shared in informal networks and they

lack access to influential others. Although empirical evidence supporting the relationship

20

between an individual's power and his or her position in the informal network has been
limited, several researchers have hypothesized that informal contacts are an important
source of power (Fombrun, 1983; Mechanic, 1962; Pfeffer, 1981). This issue is
exceedingly important when looking at minority groups in organizations, since it is
supposed that token status limits organizational contacts.

As mentioned previously, Brass (1985) investigated differences between men's and
women's interaction patterns and the relationship of those patterns to influence and
promotions. He found that women were rated as being less influential than men and
demonstrated that centrality in men's and dominant coalition networks was related to
promotions. Even though women were not tokens in this case, they still were perceived as
less powerful. Brass’s study suggests that perceptions of power or influence are related to
one’s position in the organizational network. Those who are well-integrated into the
organization’s key networks are seen as being more influential than those who are not.

Although there has been some research with respect to power and network access,
there has not been an explicit investigation of how different gender proportions in
organizations contribute to these power differentials. In the following sections I will
briefly review the voluminous work on power in organizations and propose a network
conceptualization of power (prominence). I will conclude with hypotheses on the
relationship of gender, gender ratios, distribution of formal authority, and prominence.
Mitionaljefinitions offinower

Countless researchers over the decades have looked at power in organizations

(Dahl, 1957; Dubin, 1957; Emerson, 1962; French & Raven, 1959; Harsanyi, 1962;

21
Kaplan, 1964; McClelland, 1975; McMurray, 1973; Mechanic, 1962; Miles, 1980;

Parsons, 1951; Pettigrew, 1975; Pfeffer, 1981; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974, 1977; Swingle,
1976; Tawney, 1952; Tushmen, 1977). Most of these researchers agree that power
involves influence of one individual (or unit) over another. For example, Parsons (1951)
defines power as a person's ability to influence another person or persons to carry out
orders. Some of the classical definitions of power include a component addressing the
willingness on the part of the receiver by defining power as the ability of an individual to
get another individual to do something that he or she wouldn't ordinarily do (Dahl, 1957;
Mechanic, 1962; Weber, 1947). Still others stipulate that in addition to having influence
over others, power involves an individual's capacity to resist influence (McMurray, 1973;
Tawney, 1952).
A network approach to power: Prominence

A network approach is the purest way to look at power from a communication
perspective; power is defined in terms of communication relationships. These
relationships do not occur in isolation of the organization; they are embedded within an
organizational context that causes them to emerge.

A definition of power embracing a network perspective was put forward by Burt
(1991) who argued that "an individual who is the object of relationships has something of
interest to everyone sending the relations. That interest makes the individual prominent
and gives her power" (p. 188). Instead of relying on others’ perceptions of who is

powerful, which is how most research studies assess power, Burt’s definition uses

22

something that is clearly observable as an index of power: the number of people who seek
out a particular individual.

Burt’s (1991) notion of prominence is based on demand. Organization members
are in great demand by their co-workers for a reason: they have something that others
want or need. That certain something could be something as tangible as the authority to
give raises. Or it could be something less concrete, such as the ability to form coalitions
to ensure project approval.

Thus, Burt (1991) suggests that when others have to come to you to do things
such as obtain information or advice, make requests, or to seek approval, you have
achieved a level of prominence in the organization. Prominence tells us more than simply
who is highly sought after. Burt proposes that it is an indicator of power when he says
that “to the extent that an individual is the object of relations from many others...there is a
high demand for the actor and she can use that demand to push others into carrying out
her wishes” (p. 10).

A network approach to power also offers a different perspective on what exactly
constitutes power. Traditional definitions of power imply a coercive element--power is
the ability to bend another to one's will. These definitions reflect a somewhat masculine
viewpoint, in which a stronger party dominates a weaker party. Burt’s (1991) network-
oriented approach to power defines power in terms of relationships; weaker parties seek
out communication contacts with powerfirl others. Powerful individuals do not have the
need to seek out as many relationships with others. This kinder, gentler definition

removes some of the sting of more coercive conceptualizations of power.

23

Since my interest in power in organizations is communication oriented, a network
approach to power as prominence is a logical choice. Prominence takes the concept of
power and pares it down to communication relationships; the more members of an
organization who seek out a particular individual, the more powerful that individual
becomes. Lastly, prominence reflects a viewpoint that is less harsh than some previous
definitions, a viewpoint that de-emphasizes coercion and emphasizes an individual’s
organizational assets. For these reasons I will adopt Burt’s (1991) definition of
prominence for the purposes of this study.

Prominence and gender ratios

As hypothesized earlier, there is a significant relationship between gender, gender
ratios in organizations, distribution of formal authority and network integration. If my
hypotheses are correct, men’s and women’s networks will be segregated from each other
when women occupy both the numerical majority and the majority of positions of formal
authority. In organizations where men and women are equal in number, men and women’s
informal communication networks should be well-integrated. Considering the literature
linking network position and power, I would expect that when men are segregated from
the women’s informal network, they will also be less prominent than women. When men
and women have equal access to each others’ networks, women and men will be equal in
prominence. This leads to my second set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: In an organization that is balanced with respect to gender

composition and formal authority, men and women will be equally prominent.

Hypothesis 4: In an organization where women compose the majority and hold the
majority of formal positions of authority, women will be more prominent than men.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

In this chapter I will provide more detailed information about the two research
sites under investigation in this thesisl. The broad issue of nominalist versus realist
perspective with respect to participants in network analyses will be discussed and then
followed by a description of the participants in the study. Lastly, I will discuss the
measures and the analyses that will be used to test my hypotheses.

Research sites

In this thesis I am examining the communication networks of men and women in
two types of organizations: 1) gender balanced (roughly 50% men and 50% women) and
2) female—majority (75% or more women). In order to do this, it is necessary to obtain
data regarding who talks to whom in organizations meeting these requirements. The two
organizations on which I am performing a secondary analysis are: 1) a political lobbying
organization and 2) a U.S. government agency. The political lobbying organization is
gender-balanced and the U.S. government agency is female—majority. In the following
sections I will describe the two organizations and their participants in greater detail.

Political lobbying organization

 

' The data analyzed in this thesis were drawn from two larger studies. The gender balanced data (political
lobbying organization) were derived from a study comparing cohesion and structural equivalence
explanations of social contagion in relation to commitment and role ambiguity (see Hartman and Jolmson,
1989). The female majority data (U .8. government agency) were obtained from the third collection period
in a four year project examining communication networks relating to innovations being implemented by
the agency. The third data collection was selected because during the first data collection the participants
were familiarizing themselves with the research process and an organizational event that might have
affected communication occurred during the second data collection.

24

25

Data were collected from an Eastem, state-wide, non-profit political lobbying
organization. The organization is made up of six separate offices that are located in five
different cities across the state. The organization operates with very little formally
prescribed power structure. There is one state-wide director whose role is to coordinate
the efforts of the various offices. Each office has its own location director.

The function of the political lobbying organization is to conduct campaigns to
influence members of the legislature to vote according to the group’s special interests.
Accordingly, committees are formed to handle specific campaigns and fund-raising
activities on an as-needed basis.

U.S. government agaagy

The data for the female majority condition were drawn from a U.S. government
agency. The agency is one branch of a division that is housed within a large federal
research institute. The government agency includes a confederation of 19 regional offices
that span the entire United States. The agency’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate
the efforts of the regional offices, disseminate information and to ensure uniformity in
regional programs.

The 19 regional offices provide services to both the public and to the large federal
research institute within which it is housed. They are brought together through a
negotiated five year contract which hires regional units to work together toward the
accomplishment of a common goal. However, the regional offices still retain membership
in local organizations and must balance the sometimes conflicting goals of the federal

research institute and their parent institutions.

26

As mentioned previously, the data for the female-majority condition were obtained
from a larger study focusing on innovations being implemented in the government agency
(see footnote 1). The program project staff is a consortium of researchers who banded
together to facilitate and coordinate communication research within the government
agency’s network. Although not a formal part of the agency hierarchy, per se they were
included in data collection, as they were part of the communication process with respect
to the innovations being implemented in the government agency.

For the purposes of this study, the formal organizational chart was collapsed into
seven hierarchical levels. The top two levels of the hierarchy are composed solely of
employees of the government agency. The third level is composed of the remaining
government agency employees and the top regional office employees. The next three
levels are made up of regional office employees. The members of the program project
made up the last level in the hierarchy.

Participants

Perhaps the most well known, and at times the most difficult, issue associated with
the context of networks is where to draw the boundaries around them--who should
participate in the study and who should be excluded. This is especially problematic since
boundaries imply some discontinuity in relationships, that relationships across boundaries
are in some sense qualitatively different than those within the network's boundary (Monge
& Eisenberg, 1987). In one of the more extended discussions of this issue, Lauman,
Marsden, and Prensky (1983) distinguish between nominalist and realist views of this

problem. In the realist approach, the researcher adopts the vantage point of the actors in

27

defining boundaries, while the nominalist imposes a conceptual framework that serves
his/her own analytical purposes. A nominalist approach was taken to the political lobbying
group while a realist perspective was adopted for the U.S. government agency. In the
following sections 1 will provide greater detail and justification on the choice of approach
for each organization.
Political lobbying organization

All six office locations were included in the study, however, responses were only
accepted from participants who remained with the organization for all four weeks of the
data collection period. As mentioned earlier, the political lobbying organization forms
committees as needed. Committees are formed by hiring temporary members to handle
campaigns and fund-raising. When the goals of the committee are met, it is dissolved.
Membership in the political lobbying organization fluctuates, partly due to these temporary
committees. As a result of this membership fluctuation, a nominalist approach was taken
and the researchers decided whom to include.

Each office location had a varying number of employees: location 1, (19); location
2, (16); location 3, (1); location 4, (10); location 5, (13); and location 6 (2). The overall
gender ratio of the organization was 52% male and 48% female employees (see Table 1
for gender distribution by location). Although the organization had a designated statewide
director and six location directors, no formal organizational chart existed and organization

members viewed themselves as equals.

28

U.S. government agency

From a nominalist perspective, the core of the government agency’s network is
composed of the agency staff and members of the 19 regional offices at the four highest
hierarchical levels. However, in a realist sense, some members of the other branches of
the division of the federal research institute have recurring relationships with the regional
offices focusing on a variety of work-related matters, including the innovations being
implemented. Also, some members of the government agency do not have as strong a tie
to the regional offices. Lastly, while traditionally the top level employees of the regional
offices have had a periodic, strategic role in the network, some of them under the most
recent contract have expressed a desire to have a more active role in the ongoing
operations of the agency. For these reasons a realist perspective was adopted. Members
of the government agency and the top level employees in the various regions were
permitted to self-nominate for inclusion in this research project after explaining its
purposes to them. Since a major focus of this project involves analyzing the
communication between program project staff and regional offices relating to innovations,
it was decided to include only those members who were likely to communicate on a
regular basis with the government agency personnel.

As discussed previously, using the formal organizational chart, hierarchical
positions were grouped into seven levels. The top two levels were made up entirely of
women (see Table 2 for the hierarchical distribution by gender). The overall gender ratio

of the was 23% male, 77% female.

29

Measurement

As this thesis is investigating the informal communication patterns of men and
women using network analytic techniques, it is necessary to gather data on communication
relationships within the two organizations. The basic datum of network analysis are links,
or the relationships between members of the political lobbying group and the U.S.
government agency (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981).

Network data were gathered for the two organizations using somewhat different
self-report instruments. The political lobbying organization data were collected by asking
participants to estimate how often they communicate with organization members in a
typical week. U.S. government agency data were collected using a diary format in which
participants were asked to record their face-to-face and telephone communication contacts
over a three-day period. Some of the follow-up steps taken to ensure high response rates
(e. g. telephone calls, electronic mail) recommended in the literature (e. g., Dillman, 197 8,
1991) were common to both studies. Also, participation was voluntary and respondents
were assured of confidentiality in both studies. In the following sections I will provide
rationale for the self-report method used and then describe the data collection instruments
and procedures for both studies in greater detail.

Self-report methods

Although self-reports of communication behavior have been questioned because of
their effect on accuracy (e.g., Bernard & Killworth, 1977), many still assert their validity
on a conceptual level. As Richards (1985) maintains, since self-report reveals a person's

perceptions of social reality, it often provides richer types of information than mere

30

reliance on observations and researchers who have reanalyzed the Bernard and Killworth
data have come to the opposite conclusion (Kashy & Kenny, 1990). Even Bernard and
Killworth have seen the utility of self-report for some problems (see Killworth, Bernard, &
McCarty, 1984). Indeed, while the accuracy of self-report network data has been
questioned on many grounds, for pragmatic reasons it has been the predominant method
used for network analysis (Marsden, 1990). Some have also argued, from balance theory
perspectives, that self-reports of behavior are mag; meaningful than actual behavior, since
they more closely reflect the individual's perceptions and thus are more closely linked to
their attitudes about and reactions to a particular social system (Kildufi' & Krackhardt,
1994). In addition, while self-reports are often inaccurate, because of memory problems,
in detailing what occurs for specific events, they can be very accurate in detailing the
typical structural relationships in systems (Freeman, Romney, & Freeman, 1987).
Therefore, in the case of both organizations, self-report data is used because it reflects
organizational members’ perceptions of reality and it is the most practical method to
gather data for a network that covers large geographic areas.
Political lobbying organization

One of the researchers explained the purpose of the survey and the procedure for
filling out the survey to the state-wide director. The state-wide director passed this
information on to the location directors at a state-wide meeting. Each location director
explained the survey instructions to the employees at the location offices. Questionnaires
were mailed to the offices and were returned by mail. The researchers placed two follow-

up telephone calls to each location and achieved a response rate of 97%.

31

In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to estimate how often they
communicate with members of the organization in a typical week with respect to the
following four content areas: 1) work satisfaction, 2) job duties, 3) organizational goals
and 4) topics that are not work-related. The questionnaire included the names of all
organization members on a roster by geographic location to ease respondent burden.
Respondents were not asked to indicate the mode of communication used (eg. telephone,
face-to-face).

As mentioned previously, this data was collected for a larger project (Hartman &
Johnson, 1989) and the content areas were identified accordingly. As the distinction
between the content areas are not relevant to this thesis, the first three were combined to
form a work-related network of communication contacts.

U.S. Government Agmy

Questionnaires were mailed to members of the network and were returned to the
researchers by mail. Data were collected from quarterly data collection number three of a
four-year study. The researchers instructed the respondents via telephone on how to fill
out the questionnaire and mailed an informational packet explaining the project prior to
the first data collection. Each subsequent data collection, new network members also
received a telephone call and informational packet. Respondents were warned of the
upcoming data collection period and were also reminded to return their questionnaires by
electronic mail. Follow-up telephone calls were made to those who did not return their

questionnaires. Through these efforts, a response rate of 93% was achieved.

32

Respondents were asked to record communication contacts over a three-day
period in a diary format. Respondents were instructed to record only interpersonal
contacts in the diary, either face-to-face or by telephone, which were initiated or received
during the sampling interval. In practice, because of geographic dispersion, interpersonal
contacts were primarily by telephone. Respondents were also given the option of marking
a space on the cover sheet if they did not communicate at all during the survey period.
Separate, predated forms were provided for each day of the data collection period and an
undated form for photocopying was contained in the communication log in case
individuals had more than seven contacts in any given day. Detailed examples were
provided on how to fill out the log in the packet.

A directory was provided of all members of the network, organized by fimctional
role and regional offices. This approach reduced respondent burden associated with
paging through a complete roster, while also providing a means for securing some of the
advantages of rosters. Often this is the only practicable means of recording data for larger
social systems (Marsden, 1990). Thus, individuals were asked to record the complete
names of individuals with whom they had contact. They also recorded their name, region,
and position on every page of the log. They checked whether each contact dealt with
innovations, work-related content, or both. If no communication occurred in a given day,
participants were asked to mark the appropriate space to indicate this.

Respondents did not record all communication contacts that occurred during the
three day period. As noted earlier, this thesis is part of a larger study evaluating

innovations being implemented within the agency. Therefore, two content areas were

33

identified: innovations and work-related. Respondents were advised that social, or non
work-related contacts were not to be recorded. Again, since the distinction between
innovations and work-related content is not relevant to this thesis, the two content areas
were combined to form one work-related network of communication contacts.
Comparison of politigal lobbmg organization and U.S. government agancy

The issue of the comparability of the two organizations used to perform the
secondary analysis is an important one. Ideally, the two organizations should only vary
with respect to gender ratio and gender distribution of formal authority. While this is not
completely the case, the two organizations and the methods used to collect the data were
similar enough to warrant comparison.

Both organizations are similar in function in that they both are not-for-profit and
service oriented; neither produces a tangible product. They are both involved in
govemment--the political lobbying group on a local level and the U.S. government agency
on a federal. They are also similar in terms of geographic dispersion. Although the
various locations of the political lobbying organization are not as widely separated as the
19 regional offices of the U.S. government agency, both are dispersed enough to require a
great deal of telephone communication.

The two organizations were also relatively comparable in terms of other
demographic variables, namely education and tenure. The political lobbying group was
fairly educated at 35% with bachelor’s or beyond. At 95% with bachelor’s or beyond, the
U.S. government agency was highly educated. In both organizations the average tenure of

individuals was relatively short. In the political lobbying organization the average length

34

of employment was 12.6 months. For the U.S. government agency the average length of
employment was 5 years.

Data were collected from both organizations with respect to communication
relationships amongst members. Although it is true that data were collected using
different techniques (data from the political lobbying organization were based on estimates
of communication in a “typical week” and data from the U.S. government agency were
collected via a diary format) both methods provide information about the informal
communication relationships in the organizations. Respondents in both studies were
provided with a roster of participants (the roster for the political lobbying group was five
pages, for the U.S. government agency it was two pages) and follow-up actions were
taken in both cases. Also, particularly since this was a secondary analysis of data, neither
set of subjects were aware of my research questions regarding communication between
and among genders.

Density

Network integration was operationalized as the density of communication
relationships between and among gender groups. Equally dense relations between and
among gender groups suggests integrated networks. Greater density among gender
groups than between gender groups suggests that communication networks are segregated
by gender.

Before describing the density measure utilized it is necessary to discuss network
analysis notation and some issues related to direct and indirect links. In network analysis

notation, zij represents the relationship from individual i to individual j and is a function of

35

the length of direct or indirect connections from i to j (Burt 1991). One way to measure
relationships is to only consider direct choices. For example, if i cites j directly as a
communication contact, the relationship between i and j is presumed to be strong.
However, limiting relations to direct choices ignores indirect links in networks. For
example, i could cite k as a communication contact while k cites j; i is linked to j through
k. While i still has a relatively strong relationship with j in the second example, it is not as
strong as in the first. The longer the indirect connection, the weaker the relationship
(Burt, 1991).

Burt (1991) recommends including indirect links as it is more realistic. In order to
do this, I used a frequency decay firnction to assign values to the indirect links. A
frequency decay function is based on the supposition that strength of a relation decreases
with the increasing number of indirect links. As the number of links needed to reach
another individual increases; the strength of the relationship decays. The formula for 2,5 is
as follows:

1, if i = j
Zij = 1- filei, if i can reach j
0, if cannot reach j

where N is the number of individuals that i can reach in any number of links and fij is the
number of individuals that i can reach in the minimum number of links needed to connect
with j (Burt, 1991). While the maximum possible number of indirect links in any network
equals N-l, it is intuitive that after a certain number of links a relationship is relatively
non-existent. Therefore, I chose to set the maximum number of links to be considered at

four.

36

The preceding discussion explains how the individual measure ij is determined,
which is key in calculating density. Density can be defined as the average relation
between and among groups. In network analysis notation the density (or average relation)
from group A to group B is represented by 2A3. Thus, while Zij represents an individual
measure of relationships, 2A3 is a group measure and averages the relations of the
individuals who make up the groups in question. The density measures used in this thesis
included indirect links up to four steps and utilized a frequency decay function as
discussed previously.

In this study there were two groups: group A = men and group B = women.
Density values were calculated between and among groups and accounted for the
direction of relations (who sent relations and who received). The four following
categories were obtained: 1) average relations sent from men to women , 2) average
relations sent from men to women , 3) average relations sent from women to men and 4)
average relations sent from women to women.

Power

Power was operationalized as “Prominence” (Burt, 1991). The most basic measure
of prominence is based on choice status, sociometry’s early measure of popularity (Burt,
1991). An individual’s choice status is simply the number of organizational members who
have a relation with that individual divided by the number of organizational members who
could have done so. However, this measure does not differentiate at all amongst the

organizational members who have sent the individual relations.

37

One differentiating factor is the exclusivity of relations. An individual could be the
object of strong relations, but we know nothing about whether the organizational
members are sending relations exclusively to this individual or if the organizational
members send relations to every individual in the network. For example, two individuals
could have equal numbers of organizational members who seek them out (choice status),
but one individual is the object of exclusive relations and the other is not. When
organizational members seek out an individual to the exclusion of others, it implies that
the individual has something special to offer and is in a position of power.

Burt’s (1991) exclusive relations measure remedies this situation by assessing the
extent to which the relations are directed solely to the individual. Specifically, the formula

used to calculate this index is (Burt, 1991):

exclusive relations to i = 2J[ij/Zkljk]/(N']), j not equal to i, k

where N is the number of members in the organizational system, i represents the individual
who is the object of the relationships, j represents an organizational member directing a
relationship to i, k represents all others in the organizational system, and 2 represents the
relation (fromj to i or j to k). The bracketed portion of the equation contains the
proportion of j’s relations that are sent to i (individual) versus relations that are sent to k
(other members of the organization). The proportion varies from 0 (when i receives no

relations) to 1 (when i is the only contact for every other actor) (Burt, 1991 ).

38

Analysis

This thesis is investigating the relationship between gender, gender ratios, network
segregation and power. Hypotheses l and 2 concern the degree to which men’s and
women’s informal network communication are segregated. Segregation between men and
women is operationalized as the density of communication between and among men and
women. A 2x2 density matrix will be generated using Burt’s (1991) network analytic
software program, STRUCTURE, version 4.2. The 2x2 matrix will contain the following
cells: 1) density of communication from men to men , 2) density of communication
contacts from men to women, 3) density of communication contacts from women to men
and 4) density of communication contacts from women to women (see Figure 1). Density
values among gender groups will be compared to density values between gender groups.

One of the underlying assumptions of network analysis is that relationships
between actors is the casual impetus of what people do, feel and believe (Burt, 1991). It
is this very assumption that makes it difficult to use traditional statistical measures to test
hypotheses. Standard statistical tests of network data are not really appropriate because
the observations cannot be assumed to be independent (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994). The
interrelatedness of subjects violates the statistical assumption of independent samples. In
the case of density, the evidence that I will be using to determine whether there is support
for my hypotheses will be in the form of the distribution of values in the density tables. I
have predicted in which quadrants I expect to see higher or lower values and will compare

the overall distribution of values in each quadrant.

39

Hypothesis 2 is concerned with whether there are differences between men’s and
women’s power in organizations of differing gender ratios. Burt’s (1991) prominence
measure will be used to operationalize power. As mentioned previously, the basic
assumptions of network analysis violate the assumption of independent samples necessary
for significance testing. However, the t-distribution is relatively robust and will used in an
attempt to frame the results in a manner that is familiar to most scholars. An independent
samples t-test will be performed to test the significance of a difference in mean prominence

for samples of men and women.

40
Table 1

Gender Distribution by Location for the Political Lobbying Group

 

 

 

 

Gender
Location Males Females Total
1 7 l 2 l 9
2 8 8 l6
3 4 3 7
4 5 5 l 0
5 10 3 l 3
Total 34 3 l 65

% of Total 52% 48%

 

41
Table 2

Hiriarchfirl Distribution by Gender for Government Agency and Program Project

 

 

 

 

Gender
Level Males Females Total

1 - 4 4

2 - 3 3

3 14 15 29

4 2 l 7 19

5 5 19 24

6 3 24 27

7 6 16 22
Total 30 98 128

% of Total 23% 77%

 

42

 

 

 

 

Gender Men l Women
I
I
l
I
I
I
Density of : Density of
Men communication contacts from : communication contacts from

men to men : men to women

(Quadrant l) r (Quadrant 2)
l
I
I

____________________ _L——————————————-____-a
I
I
I
I
I
Density of : Density of
Women communication contacts from : communication contacts from
women to men : women to women

(Quadrant 4) r (Quadrant 3)
I
I
I
I
I
I

 

 

 

Figure 1. 2 X2 Density Matrix

RESULTS

The purpose of the analyses reported in this chapter is to determine if there is
support for the following four hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: In an organization that is balanced with respect to gender
composition and formal authority, the density of informal communication among
gender groups will equal the density of communication between gender groups.
Hypothesis 2: In an organization where women compose the majority and hold the
majority of formal positions of authority, the density of informal communication
among gender groups will be greater than the density of informal communication

between gender groups.

Hypothesis 3: In an organization that is balanced with respect to gender
composition and formal authority, men and women will be equally prominent.

Hypothesis 4: In an organization where women compose the majority and hold the

majority of formal positions of authority, women will be more prominent than men.
Density of communication contacts between and among gender groups

No variation in the density of communication contacts between and among gender
groups in the gender-balanced condition was observed (see Table 3). The density of
communication contacts were as follows: 1) from men to men = .391, 2) from men to
women = .366, 3) from women to men = .377 and 4) fiom women to women = .375.
Men and women sent communication contacts to members of their own gender group as

well as members of the opposite gender group. The results reported in Table 3 provide

43

44

strong evidence that, men and women were highly integrated in each others’ networks,

providing support for Hypothesis 1.

Table 3

Derlsjty of communication by gender iflender balanced organization

 

 

 

Gender
Gender Men Women
Men .3 91 .3 66
Women .377 .375

 

Note. The density between any two individuals in the network is .378.

In the female-majority condition there does appear to be some variation in the
density of relations between and among gender groups (see Table 4). The density of
communication contacts were as follows: 1) from men to men = .015, 2) from men to
women = .035, 3) from women to men = .030 and 4) from women to women = .044.
Communication contacts among women were the most dense while communication
contacts among men were the least dense. It appears that men are just as likely to send
communication contacts to women as women are to men. The density of relations from
men to women and from women to men was higher than the density of relations of men to
men. The results presented in Table 4 suggest that while women tended to form a fairly

segregated network of communication contacts, men did not. The overall results reported

45
in Table 4 demonstrate at least partial support for Hypothesis 2 in that network relations

among women were the most dense.

Table 4

Density of communication by gender in female-majorig organization

 

 

 

Gender
Gender Men Women
Men .015 .035
Women . .03 O .044

 

Note. The density between any two individuals in the network is .038.

Gender differences in prominence

An independent samples t-test was performed to evaluate the null hypothesis,
namely, there are no differences between men’s and women’s prominence. Tables 5 and 6
report the mean exclusive relations measure of prominence, t-value, observed significance
and degrees of freedom for the gender-balanced organization and the female-majority
organization, respectively. In the gender-balanced condition (see Table 5) , men’s mean
exclusive relations value was .0157 while women’s was .0156. A t-value of .04 and an
observed significance level of .49 (l-tailed) was calculated. There is a failure to reject the
null hypothesis as the observed significance level of .49 is too large at p<.05. These data

suggest that there is no significant effect of gender on prominence in an organization that

46

is balanced with respect to gender and hierarchical distribution and provide support for

Hypothesis 3.

Table 5

Differences between men and women in prominence in finder balanced organization

 

 

 

Means
Men Women T-value
Prominence index (N = 31) (N = 34) df = 63
Exclusive relations .0157 .0156 .04

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

In the female-majority condition (see Table 6), men’s mean exclusive relations
value was .0026 while women’s was .0049. A t-value of -2.37 and an observed
significance of .01 was calculated. This time the null hypothesis is rejected as the observed
significance level of .01 is statistically significant at p<.05 and p<.01. These data suggest
that there is a significant effect of gender on prominence in a female-majority organization,
thus Hypothesis 4 was supported. It is important to consider, however, that the network
data for the U.S. government agency is sparse when compared to the political lobbying
group. A large number of respondents report zero communication during the data

collection period which results in a much lower standard deviation for prominence in the

47

government agency as compared to the political lobbying group ( e.g., men’s standard

deviation = .02 for the government agency versus .19 for the political lobbying group).

Table 6

Differences between men and women in prominence in female majority organization

 

 

 

Means
Men Women T-value
Prominence index (N = 31) (N = 349 d.f. = 63
Exclusive relations .0026 .0049 .-2.37**

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of purpose and findings

The purpose of this thesis was to perform a secondary analysis to investigate the
relationship of gender, gender ratios, and distribution of formal authority to network
integration and network prominence. In particular, two types of organizations were
examined: 1) an organization that was balanced with respect to gender and distribution of
formal authority and 2) an organization that had a female majority and where women held
the majority of formal positions of authority.

I hypothesized that in the gender-balanced condition 1) men’s and women’s
informal communication networks would be integrated and 2) that men and women would
be equally prominent. Both of these two hypotheses were supported. The hypothesis that
men’s and women’s informal communication networks would be segregated in the female-
majority with females concentrated in upper level positions condition was partially
supported. Lastly, the hypothesis that women would be more prominent than men in the
female was supported. Overall, the analyses reported confirm the proposition that gender
ratios and gender distribution of formal authority in organizations are related to
differences in men’s and women’s informal communication patterns. These findings paint
a picture of tokenism that is more complex than simple group membership based on

gender or race that has been posited previously in the literature.

48

49

Network integration: gender ratios and gender distribution of formal authority

In the search for answers to the question why do men and women experience
different organizational outcomes, systemic explanations have been offered. This thesis
advances the understanding of systemic explanations for differences in men’s and women’s
communication patterns by taking the distribution of formal positions into account in
addition to gender ratios in organizations. The inclusion of distribution of formal authority
helps to clarify the literature on men’s and women’s informal combination networks in
organizations.

As mentioned earlier, one type of systemic barrier that has been widely
investigated in the literature is women’s lack of access to influential networks. Kanter
(1977) proposed that tokens, those in the numerical minority with respect to race or
gender, are excluded from influential networks. Kanter’s arguments were based on her
observations of an organization where women were the tokens and where men held the
majority of upper level positions, however, she predicted that token dynamics would be
present for male tokens as well. Fairhurst & Snavely (1983) did not find that male tokens
were socially isolated and speculated that this was due to men’s higher status in society.
Using Kanter’s rationale, I would predict that men’s and women’s networks would be
segregated in an organization where men are the minority; using Fairhurst’s and Snavely’s,
I would predict that men’s and women’s networks would not be segregated. By
introducing the distribution of formal authority to token dynamics, I have provided a way

to make sense of conflicting results in the literature. Tokenism is moderated by the power

50

derived from formal positions of authority, therefore I would predict that men’s and
women’s networks would be segregated.

Of course, the results in this study did not completely support the hypothesis that
men’s and women’s networks would be segregated in an organization where women are in
the majority and hold the majority of upper level positions. There appeared to be a
segregated network of women, yet communication ties among men was not nearly as
dense. This could possibly be explained by the extreme geographic dispersion of the
members of this particular organization. Recall that members of this organization are
dispersed across the entire United States. In particular, the position that has the highest
concentration of men is a regional office position, which means that most of the men are
scattered across the country. Even if men in this organization would prefer to
communicate with members of their own gender, the opportunity to do so may be
constrained by location. By virtue of the sheer number of women in the organization and
the location of other men in the organization, men are more likely to have informal
communication with women than with men.

Brass’s (1985) study provides some support for this contention. Brass
investigated the effect of proximity on network interactions when he observed some
exceptions to the rule of gender segregated networks. Brass noted that membership in
either an integrated or segregated workgroup seemed to explain why some men and some
women were integrated into the opposite gender’s network. When compared to women in
all-female workgroups, women and men in integrated workgroups were equally central in

the men’s network. Men in integrated workgroups were more central to the women’s

51

network than men in segregated workgroups, however they still were less central to the
women’s network than were women in integrated workgroups. Brass concluded that
although these findings did not completely explain the exception, they did emphasize the
importance of proximity on network interactions.

What do the results from this thesis imply for organizations? Kanter’s theory of
numerical imbalance suggests that a state of equilibrium will be reached in organizations
when there are equal numbers of men and women. If simply changing the gender ratios in
organizations would truly remedy barriers to informal communication networks,
demographic projections of increasing numbers of women entering the work force would
offer some measure of hope. However, from a policy standpoint, this research suggests
that organizations that are committed to equality must be concerned with more than just
the sheer number of women; organizations must also be concerned about the advancement
of women.

Network integration and prominence

In addition to incorporating formal authority with gender ratios to better
understand men’s and women’s informal network communication, this thesis also makes a
case for the relationship between network integration and network prominence.
Prominence indices are one way to measure the informal power wielded by organizational
members. The results of this thesis suggest that segregation from the majority group’s
informal communication network has detrimental implications for the minority group’s

prominence.

52

In light of these findings, what strategies would I suggest for men and women in
organizations in terms of their network contacts? Brass (1985) concluded that
encouraging women to form informal communication relationships with other women
“may be unnecessary, or at worst, nonproductive” (p. 340). Ibarra (1992) also concluded
that “women are likely to benefit from the development of greater ties to their male
colleagues” (p. 441). Again, the gender distribution of formal authority has bearing on
this issue. Although women would probably profit fiom informal communication
relationships with men in “typical” organization where men are in the majority and occupy
most formal positions of power, this research suggests more broadly that individuals
should consider majority group membership and formal authority when choosing network
contacts.

Limitations

The cross sectional design of this study is one of its most important
methodological limitations. It makes it difficult to determine causality. Are women in a
particular organization more prominent because they occupy the majority of formal
positions of power or do they occupy formal positions of power because they are more
prominent? It would be interesting to examine network prominence of men and women
while tracking their movement through the formal hierarchy over time.

Another potential limitation of this study stems from the fact that it was a
secondary analysis of data that was collected to investigate other research propositions.
While performing a secondary analysis of existing data can be a very convenient way to

assess the viability of research propositions, it can pose problems in terms of research

53

design. For example, in order to have greater confidence about the relationship of gender,
gender ratios, and distribution of formal authority to network integration and network
prominence, it would be necessary to ensure that the organizations under investigation are
more comparable in terms of characteristics such as size, type, etc.

Implications for future research

The research undertaken in this thesis provides several contributions to the field of
organizational communication. First, it provided further elaboration of the concept of
tokenism by including formal position authority as a variable. Explicitly including formal
authority as a moderator of tokenism helps explain conflicting results. Second, it
investigated communication patterns in organizations that do not represent the status quo
in terms of demographics, but instead looked at organizations that better represent fixture
trends.

This thesis has merely scratched the surface in terms of the effect of formal
position on token dynamics. Future research needs to be done to firrther test the
relationship in organizations with different gender ratios and distributions of formal
authority (e.g., male majority with females in upper level positions of female majority with
males in upper level positions). Researching organizations with a variety of gender ratios
and distributions of formal authority will help assess the strength of formal position as a
moderator.

It would also be interesting to do firrther research on what variables are associated
with integration or segregation. Particularly since some demographic characteristics are

highly correlated (e. g. tenure and hierarchical level) it would be important to also consider

54

the effects of variables like tenure or education on network integration and network
prominence.

One of the goals of this thesis was to provide a very broad picture of token
dynamics in organizations with different gender ratios and to delineate the influence of
formal position on token dynamics. Although this has been accomplished to a certain
extent, future research attempts should introduce a level of complexity that has been
demonstrated by other network studies. For example, Brass (1985) and Ibarra (1992)
differentiated between topics in her network analysis. The network content areas Brass
identified were work flow and informal interaction. Ibarra identified communication,
advice, support, influence, and friendship as important content areas. Ibarra found that
women obtained social support and fiiendship from other women and instrumental access
through ties to men. Perhaps there are gender differences in integration depending upon
the content of communication.

Another issue that this thesis did not address at all was the outcomes associated
with network integration or segregation. While there appeared to be a relationship
between network integration and prominence, nothing is known about the causal ordering
of the process. Future research should include a follow-up to assess the impact of
network integration on promotions (or some other important outcome variable). This
information would serve to strengthen the argument that network ties in organizations are
important determinants of organizational success.

Lastly, as indicated in the literature review, the research on power in organizations

has been quite extensive. Ragins and Sundstrom (1989), who were interested in power

55

differences between men and women conducted a review of the literature on power.
Ragins and Sundstrom concluded that power has usually been defined as a property of the
individual, of interpersonal relationships, or of the organization. They proposed that these
three approaches can be combined to suggest the following working definition of power:
"influence by one person over others, stemming from a position in an organization, from
an interpersonal relationship or from an individual characteristic" (p. 51). The network
approach to power that was proposed in this thesis had the ability to address the issues of
interpersonal relationships and organization position, however, it did not address the issue
of personal characteristics. Future studies of gender power differentials should address
perceptions of individual’s power by other organizational members.
Summary

Let us return for a moment to the dilemma that Pat faces with regard to which job
offer to accept. Bear in mind that Pat would like to work for an organization where men’s
and women’s networks are integrated and Pat would like to be a prominent member of the
organization. There are two job offers under consideration: one from an organization
where women compose the majority group and occupy the majority of upper level
positions and one from an organization that is balanced with respect to gender and
distribution of formal authority.

The results of this thesis suggest that Pat’s choice will depend on Pat’s gender.
Assuming Pat is a woman, she is presented with a difficult decision. If she is truly desires
informal communication contacts with members of the opposite gender she should choose

a gender balanced organization. Unfortunately, working in the gender-balanced

56

organization means that she will not have an advantage with respect to network
prominence. If she wishes to maximize her prominence (reasoning that greater
prominence will lead to advancement in the organization) she should choose the female-
majority organization. If Pat is a man, he should choose the gender-balanced organization
because he will have informal communication contacts with members of both genders and
he will be equal to women in terms of prominence. If he were to choose the female-
majority organization he would not only be segregated from the women’s informal
communication network, he would also suffer a decrement in prominence relative to

women.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Baird, J. E., & Bradley, P. H. (1979). Styles of management and communication: a
comparative study of men and women. Communication Monographs, 46, 101-
111.

Bartol, K. (1974). Male versus female leaders: The effect of leader need for dominance
on follower satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 225-232.

Bartol, K. (1978). The sex structuring of organizations: A search for possible causes.
Academy of Management Review, 3, 805-813.

Bartol, K. M. , & Butterfield, D. A. (1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 446-454.

Bernard, H. R., & Killworth, P. D. (1977). Informant accuracy in social network data. 11.
Human Communication Research 4, 3-18.

Blau, F. D. (1992). Gender and economic outcomes, NBER Reporter, Spring, 4-7.

Blau, F. D., & F erber, M. E., (1987). Occupations and earnings of women workers. In
K. S. Koziara, M. H. Moskow, & L. D. Tanner (Eds), Working Women: Past
Present, Future (pp. 37-68). Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and
influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327-348.

Brown, L. K. (1979). Women and business management. Signs, 5, 266-288.

Brownell, W., & Smith, D. R. (1973). Communication patterns, sex, and length of
verbalization in the speech of four-year-old children. Speech Monographs, 40,
310-316.

Burt, R. S. (1991). STRUCTURE, Version 4.2. New York: Center for the Social
Sciences, Columbia University.

Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 210-215.

57

58

Daily, C. M. (1993). The (r)evolution of the American woman. Business Horizons, 36,
1-5.

Dexter, C. R. (1985). Women and the exercise of power in organizations: From ascribed
to achieved status. In L. Larwood, A. H. Stromberg, & B. A. Gutek (Eds),
Women and work. Vol. 1: An annual review (pp. 239-258). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: John Wiley.
Sociology, 17, 225-249.

Dipboye, R. L. (1987). Problems and progress of women in management. In K. S.
Koziara, M. H. Moskow, & L. D. Tanner (Eds. ), Working women: Past, present,
future. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Dubin, R. (1957). Power, function and organization. Pacific Sociological Review, 6, 16-
24.

Eakins, B., & Eakins, G. (1976). Verbal tum-taking and exchanges in faculty dialogue.
In B. L. Dubois and I. Crouch (Eds), The sociology of the languages of American
women (pp. 53-62). San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review,
27, 31-41.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Snavely, B. K.(1983a). Majority and token minority group
relationships: Power acquisition and communication. Academy of Management
Review, 8, 292-300.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Snavely, B. K.(1983b). A test of the social isolation of the male token.
Academy of Management Journal, 2, 353-361.

F ombrun, C. J. (1983). Attributions of power across a social network Human Relations,
36(6) 493-508.

Freeman, L. C., Romney, A. K., & Freeman, S. C. (1987). Cognitive structure and
informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 89, 310-324.

French, J. R., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed).
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Research Center for
Group Dynamics, Institute of Social Research.

Harsanyi, J. C. (1962). Measurement of social power, opportunity, costs and the theory
of two-person bargaining games. Behavioral Science, 7, 67-80.

59

Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1990). Formal and informal group communication
structures: An examination of their relationship to role ambiguity. Social
Networks, 12, 127-151.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network

structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3 7,
22-447.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A
conceptual framework. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 56-87.

Inderlied, S. D. & Powell, G. (1979). Sex-role identity and leadership styles: Different
labels for the same concept? Sex Roles, 5, 613-625.

Irons, E., & Moore, G. (1985). Black managers: lhe case of the banking industry.
New York: Prager.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan, A. (1964). Power in perspective. In R. L. Kahn & E. Boulding (Eds), Power
and Conflict in Organizations (pp. 11-32). London: Tavistock. .

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1990). Do you know whom you were with a week ago
Friday? A re-analysis of the Bernard, Killworth and Sailer studies Social
Psychology Quarterly, 53, 55-61.

Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1984). Bringing the individual back in: A structural
analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 3 7, 87- 1 08.

Killworth, P. D., Bernard, H. R., & McCarty, C. (1984). Measuring patterns of
acquaintanceship. Current Anthropology, 25, 381-392.

Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and
power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369.

Kramer, C. R. (1974). Women’s speech: Separate but unequal? Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 60, 14-24.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2 (45), 47-48.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women ’5 place. New York: Harper and Row.

60

Laumann, E. 0., Marsden, P. V., & Prensky, D. (1983). The boundary specification
problem in network analysis. In R. S. Burt and M. J. Minor (Eds), Applied
Network Analysis (pp. 18-34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lin, N. (1982). Social resources and instrumental action. In P. V. Marsden and N. Lin
(Eds), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 131-145). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Lincoln, J. R. & Miller, J. (1979). Work and fiiendship ties in organizations: A
comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly,

24, 181-199.

Marsden, P. V. (1990) Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology,
16, 43 5-463.

McClelland, D. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.

Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 349-364.

Miles, R. H. (1980). Organizational politics. In Macro Organizational Behavior (pp.
165-175). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.

Miller, J. (197 5). Isolation in organizations: Alienation from authority, control and
expressive relations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 260-271.

Miller, J. (1986). Pathways in the worlgvlace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, J ., Labovitz, S., & Fry, L. (1975). Inequities in the organizational experience of
women and men. Social Forces, 54(2), 365-381.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management.
American Psychologist, 45, 200-208.

Nelson, D. L. , & Quick, J. C. (1994). Organizational Behavior: Foundations, realities
and challenges. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1975). Towards a political theory of organizational intervention,
Human Relations, 28, 191-208.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston, Pitman.

61

Powell, G. N. (1990). One more time: Do female and male managers differ? Academy of
Management Executive, 4 (3), 68-75.

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A
longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 51-88.

Rice, R. E., & Richards, W. D. (1985). An overview of network analysis methods and
programs. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds), Progress in Communication
Sciences, (pp. 105-165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Richards, W. D. (1985). Data, models, and assumptions in network analysis. In R. D.
McPhee & P. K. Tompkins, (Eds), Organizational communication: Traditional
themes and new directions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational
decision-making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19,
453-473.

Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power and how they hold on to it: A
strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5 (3), 2-31.

Schultz, K., Briere, J ., & Sandler, L. (1984). The use and development of sex-typed
language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 327-336.

Smythe, M. J. (1991). Gender and communication behaviors: A review of research. In
B. Dervin (Ed), Progress in Communication Science, Vol. X, (pp. 173-215),
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Swingle, P. C. (1976). The Management of Power. New York: Wiley.

Tawney, R. H. (1952). Equality. London: Allen & Unwin.

Tushmen, M. L. (1977). A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale.
Academy of Management Review, 2, 206-216.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1979). U. S. working women: A
databook. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1984). Employment and
earnings. Washington, DC: Author.

Weber, M. (1947). Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization.
Translated and edited by Talcott Parsons and A. M. Henderson. New York: Free
Press.

62

Welsh, M. C. (19791). Attitudinal measures and evaluation of males and females in
leadership roles. Psychological Reports, 45, 19-22.

Wexley, K. N ., & Hunt, P. J. (1974). Male and female leaders: Comparison of
performance and behavior patterns. Psychological Reports, 35, 867-872.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in

conversation. In B. Theme & N. Henley (Eds), Language and sex: Difference
and dominance (pp. 105-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. L
Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293014100'