PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE DiFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN SUPERVISORS AND 2 j ’ j j _ IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ CHESTER A. FRANCKEi 1975* , \\ IIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ABSTRACT PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN SUPERVISORS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING By Chester A. Francke This research was designed to determine what, if any, per- formance differences exist between women supervisors and men super- visors, as perceived by their superiors and subordinates, and what implications such differences, if any, have for the training of women supervisors. Employers are being required to accelerate their efforts to hire and promote women (and other affected groups)--to hire and pro- mote in such a way that every' level and every function is populated with an appropriate number of women. One impact of this regulation on employers is the immediate need to move more women into super- visory and managerial jobs. But how? Should women receive the same training and devel- opment effort as men? More? Less? If not, what training do women need? This research attempted to determine if women have differ- ent training needs than men based on a study of their performance as supervisors. Chester A. Francke The research was designed to test four hypotheses: l. There is no difference in perceived managerial skill of women and men supervisors. 2. There is no difference between women and men supervisors 1n their reaction to job pressures, as perceived by superiors and subordinates. 3. Women and men supervisors are similarly willing to pre- pare themselves for positions of greater responsibility. 4. Women and men supervisors are similarly willing to assume greater responsibility. The study was confined to twenty-two divisions of one large company; the design called for interviews with managers and workers, both men and women, to gather views and opinions about the effec- tiveness of women supervisors. As a result of these interviews (in which women supervisors were often described as not possessing certain managerial skills), a survey instrument was devised and administered. The instrument, entitled Training Analysis Survey, was in three forms: Form 1, administered to superiors; Form II, administered to supervisors; and Form III, administered to subordinates. The instrument used a question format with the stem, "To what extent . . .“ with a seven-point response scale ranging from "not at all" to "com- pletely." The survey instrument was administered to 1,313 respondents, of whom 498 were women and 815 were men. The design of the study attempted to isolate sex of the super- visor as the only possible factor to explain differences when they appeared. The sample selection matched men and women supervisors on a range of characteristics, including: type of job, position or level, Chester A. Francke education, age, time on present job, total time of employment, race, and marital status. Subordinates to each supervisor were selected randomly by a personnel technician from the total population of subordinates. All superiors of the men and women supervisors included in the study were selected from the total population of superiors. The data were gathered with optical scanning response forms and analyzed by bivariate tables so that any of the survey items could be analyzed against the sex of the respondents. Twenty-seven survey items were analyzed for this research. Eighteen items pertained to Hypothesis 1, concerning managerial skills (skills in communicating, delegating, planning, organizing, setting priorities, making decisions and solving problems, maintain- ing effective relationships, and getting work done). 0f the eighteen items, only two showed a significant difference in perceived perfor- mance between women and men supervisors: Women supervisors' quantity of work is more satisfying to superiors than is men supervisors'. Subordinates perceive women supervisors to be more concerned with the Quality of subordinates' work than are men super- visors. Two items were analyzed to test Hypothesis 2, dealing with reaction to job pressure. On both of these items, there was no sig- nificant difference between women and men supervisors in perceived reaction to pressure. Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the willingness to prepare for positions of greater responsibility. Four items were analyzed; Chester A. Francke two indicated a significant difference between women and men super- visors: Women supervisors are more willing to attend evening school. Women supervisors are more willing to participate in on-the-job training. To test Hypothesis 4, three items were analyzed and all three indicated a significant difference between women and men supervisors. The data showed that men supervisors are more willing to assume greater job responsibilities than are their women counterparts. Regarding training implications, these data tended to indicate that women have no differential training needs on managerial skills or reacting to job pressures. Since women are more willing to prepare themselves for positions of greater responsibility, yet seem less_ willing to assume greater responsibility, some type of self-concept or awareness training might be indicated. PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN SUPERVISORS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING By Chester A. Francke A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1975 © Copyright by CHESTER A. FRANCKE 1975 To Renie, who worked harder than anyone else to make this happen. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation and gratitude are expressed to the individuals who made this possible: to my wife and family for their forebear- ance; to Professor Borosage for his inspiration and encouragement; to George Nowacek for his invaluable advice; to Liz Donaldson, Kathy: Timmons, and Rose Griffin for their assistance; to the members of my committee for their help and understanding; and to my employers for their support. TABLE OF CONTENTS . Page LIST \OF TABLES ......................... vi Chapter. I. INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 Background . . . . .................. l Problem to Be Investigated .............. 4 Purpose of the Study ................. 5 Hypotheses ...................... 6 Definition of Terms ................. 7 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. 8 Summary ....................... 20 III. THE STUDY ....................... 22 Description of the Population ............ 22 Sampling Technique .................. 23 Training Analysis Survey Instrument ......... 24 Management of the Data ................ 26 Summary ..................... .. . I 27 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,*x 28 Hypothesis l ................... /'5 information ° ' ' Subordinates have information needed to (?'232) (1'23?) 3:3;2 >'5 carry out job ' ' ' Provides subordinates . . 4.893 4.663 0.950 >.35 information needed (1.828) (1 779) N=224 to schedule work aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Analysis of the data in Table 1 reveals that men and women supervisors communicated job-related information with nearly equal effectiveness. There was no significant difference in any of the items. Regarding their skills in communicating, there was no sig- nificant difference between men and women supervisors as measured by this research. Skills in Delegation The second grouping of responses dealt with the supervisor's ability to delegate. Responses to seven questions are included here. The seven questions were: 31 (Asked of the superior): To what extent does the supervisor delegate work effectively? To what extent does the supervisor effectively utilize his/her people? (Asked of subordinates): To what extent do you have the authority you need to meet your responsibilities? .To what extent are your job responsibilities clearly defined? To what extent does your supervisor give work assignments in small, non-related pieces? To what extent does your supervisor communicate in detail how your job will be done? To what extent does your supervisor effectively utilize your ability? Several of these questions squarely confronted the issue of delegation skills. Others assumed that the extent to which a sub- ordinate understands the job responsibilities and has authority to meet them is a direct reflection of the supervisor's ability to dele- gate. Likewise, the questions concerning the manner in which the supervisors delegate ("in small, non-related pieces"; "in detail") were taken as a measure of effectiveness in delegating. The super- visor's perceived ability to utilize people also reflects the ability to delegate. The responses to this group of questions are presented in Table 2. Analysis of the data in Table 2 indicates there was no sig- nificant difference between men and women supervisors' skill in delegating. 32 Table 2.--Mean responses pertaining to supervisor's skill in delegation. Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors ggfizggggegg;i°r 4.528 a 4.500 0.215 >.5 effectiver? (1.199) (1.290) N=369 Does supervisor . . . 4.722 4.653 0.483 >.5 SEESTEEVEIy "t111ze (1.287) (1.401) N=352 Do subordinates . 4.512 4.731 -0.896 >.35 :gzgeggthor'ty (1.855) (1.766) N=223 Job responsibilities 5.358 5.635 -1.193 >.25 clearly defined (1.788) (1.641) N=222 435232T$"t:ogjve" 5.217 5.298 -0.369 >.5 related Bieces (1.577) (1.709) N=222 Does supervisor tell 3.322 3.308 0.060 >.5 how job is to be done? (1.745) (1.871) N=223 Does supervisor . . . . . 4.694 4.388 1.381 >.15 g:}}}§;,SUP°'d'”ate 5 (1.574) (1.725) N=222 aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. 33 Skills in Planning, Organizing, and Setting Priorities The skills of planning, organizing, and setting priorities are important to a supervisor's effectiveness. During preliminary inter- views, a number of managers commented that women are less skilled than men in these important skills. So a question was directed at superiors as follows: To what extent is the supervisor effective at such activities as planning, organizing, and setting priorities? The responses are summarized in Table 3. Table 3.--Mean responses of superiors pertaining to supervisor's skill in planning, organizing, and setting priorities. Women Men . . t P Superv150rs Superv1sors Skill in Planning, 4.723 4.667 0.422 >.5 organizing, and a = setting priorities (1'248) 11-342) N 380 aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Again, there was no significant difference between men and women supervisors' skill in planning, organizing, and setting priori- ties, as perceived by their superiors. Questions dealing with this skill were not asked of subordinates. Skills in Making Decisions and Solving Problems Decision making and problem solving are a part of the super- visor's job. For this reason, superiors were asked how effectively 34 supervisors make decisions and solve problems. The specific question was: To what extent do supervisors logically and effectively make decisions and solve problems? Some authors have suggested that women are not as logical as men and, therefore, have more difficulty making decisions and solving problems. Data on this question are presented in Table 4. Table 4.--Mean responses pertaining to decision-making and problem- solving skill. Women Men - - t P Superv150rs Superv1sors Supervisor logically and effectively makes 4.759 a 4.833 -0.650 >.5 decisions and solves (1.108) (1.133) N=381 problems a Numerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. In the critical skill of decision making and problem solving there was, again, no significant difference in the perceived effec- tiveness of men and women supervisors. Skills in Maintaining Effective Relationships Maintaining harmonious and productive relationships with fellow workers is an important skill for supervisors. This is a skill at which women are reputed to excel. 35 To clarify this matter, superiors were asked: To what extent does the supervisor contribute to a har- monious working relationship with fellow workers? The responses to this question appear in Table 5. Table 5.--Mean responses pertaining to supervisor's skill in effective relationships. Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors Does the supervisor contribute to har- 5.069 a 5.222 -l.222 >.26 monious working (1.377) (1.276) N=381 relationships? aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Regarding skills in effective relationships, there was no significant difference between men and women supervisors' effective- HESS. Skills in Getting Work Done The ultimate test of supervisory effectiveness is whether or not the work gets done on time, and in the proper quality and quantity. Five questions were asked to determine whether there is a difference in men and women supervisors' ability to get the work done. The five questions were: (Asked of superior): To what extent does the supervisor meet work deadlines? To what extent are you satisfied with the guality of the supervisor's work? 36 To what extent are you satisfied with the Quantity of the supervisor's work? (Asked of subordinates): To what extent is your supervisor concerned with the Quality of your work? To what extent is your supervisor concerned with the quantity of your work? The responses to these questions are summarized in Table 6. Table 6.--Mean responses pertaining to supervisor's skill in getting work done. Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors Supervisor meets 5.362 a 5.183 1.546 >.12 work deadlines (1.103) (1.138) N=377 Supervisor satTSfaCtion With (?.gg§) ($.ggfi) ;;§gé >.18 quality of work ' . ' Supervisor ‘ ....-..=....-.. w... (53;?) ($133) ($3; «01 quantity of work ' ' Supervisor concerned 5 844 5 433 1 998 < 05 "'th “93"FY 0' (1.379) (1.703) N=224 subordinate 5 work Supervisor concerned . . 5.795 5.654 0.725 >.45 "'t“ quant'ty 01 (1.361) (1.555) N=224 subordinate's work aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Analysis of these data indicated that there was no significant difference in men and women supervisors' ability to meet work dead- lines and provide satisfactory quality of work. There was, however, a significant difference regarding quantity of work: The quantity of 37 work of women supervisors was more "satisfying" to superiors than the quantity of work of men supervisors, to a significant degree. There was no significant difference in the amount of concern shown for the quantity of subordinate's work between men supervisors and women supervisors. There was a significant difference in the amount of concern shown for the quality of subordinate's work, with women supervisors showing a greater degree of concern than men super- visors. This finding appears to be paradoxical. When superiors looked at supervisors, they found the guantity of work of women supervisors more satisfying, but saw no significant difference in the quality of work. But when subordinates looked at supervisors, they found significantly more concern for Quality being shown by women supervisors, and no significant difference in concern for Quantity shown by men and women supervisors. So, to the superior, women looked better on Quantity standards; to subordinates, they were more guality conscious. Thus, on the ability to get work done, the results were mixed. On two of the five questions compiled in this category, women super- visors were perceived as performing significantly differently than men supervisors. Summary To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in per- ceived managerial skills of men and women supervisors, eighteen ques- tions were asked--nine of superiors and nine of subordinates. Responses 38 to these questions were grouped into six managerial skill groupings-- skills which are thought to be essential to success as a supervisor. Based on the analysis of these data, it can be concluded that no significant difference was perceived between men and women supervisors on any of the six groups of managerial skills. lMIfact, only two significant differences were perceived between men and women supervisors on the eighteen specific items. One is struck by the similarity of responses, whether perceived by superior or sub- ordinate. Hypothesis 1 was supported by the data, with the notation that a significant difference existed on only two of the eighteen items--differences that indicated more effective performance by gpmep_ supervisors. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 states that there is no significant difference perceived between women and men supervisors in their reaction to job pressures. A concern was frequently expressed during preliminary interviews that women do not bear up well under pressure, and that they would overreact to pressure in some dysfunctional way. The literature abounds with this notion. To test this hypothesis, two questions were asked about supervisors. One, asked of superiors, was: To what extent does the supervisor deal effectively with crises? It was felt that a supervisor's ability to deal with crises presents, to the superior, a view of that supervisor's reaction to pressure--since 39 a crisis always carries with it a substantial amount of pressure for the supervisor. And since the superior is often the source of the pressure, it seemed best to word the question this way. The other question, asked of subordinates, was: To what extent does your supervisor overreact to job pressures? The responses to these two questions are presented in Table 7. Table 7.--Mean responses pertaining to supervisor's reaction to pressure. Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors Supervisor deals 4 685 4 828 _] 098 > 29 effectively with ' a ' L ' crises (1.282) (1.255) N-381 Supervisor overreacts 4.549 4.750 -0.824 >.38 to job pressures (1.865) (1.764) N=224 aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Based on these data, there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of men and women supervisors in dealing with crises and overreaction to job pressures, as perceived both by superiors and subordinates. Summary While it is frequently held that women do not react well to pressure and to crises, the data showed no significant difference 40 between men and women supervisors in this regard. In both measures, men supervisors were perceived slightly more positively than women supervisors but the difference was not significant. Hypothesis 2 was supported by the data. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 states that women and men are similarly willing to prepare themselves for positions of greater responsibility. There exists a notion, strengthened by recent feminist demands and govern- ment requirements, that women want promotions and greater responsi- bility, but are unwilling to invest the time and effort to prepare themselves for such responsibility. One view was stated by Killian: She should remember that every woman will have the same basic opportunities to participate in company-sponsored programs . . . and that a woman who wants to advance quickly uses the company program only as a launching pad. She then engages in addi- tional programs on her own initiative, recognizing that her development is her personal responsibility. Four questions aimed at this issue were asked of supervisors and subordinates: To what extent would you be willing to return to school in the evening for more training? To what extent would you be willing to participate in on- the-job training to learn a new job in your present organ- ization? To what extent have you had the opportunity to develop your potential in this organization? To what extent do you feel the organization adequately prepared you to perform your present job? 1Killian, The Working Woman, p. 59. 41 The first two questions directly faced the issue of willingness to prepare themselves for positions of greater responsibility. Although there may be other alternatives an individual could choose to prepare for greater responsibility (correspondence courses, leave of absence to pursue education, etc.), surely the willingness to return to school in the evening provides some measure of the individual's willingness. Attending evening school is, for most employed people, a substantial inconvenience and chore--one not entered into frivolously or with little hope of reward. The willingness to learn a new job in one's present organiza- 'thwialsoimplies the willingness to invest extra time and effort, especially when it was not clear from the question whether the new job would be better than the present one. The third question, dealing with the opportunity to develop potential, presented a modifying view. One could assume that men traditionally have had more opportunity to develop their potential than have women, and thus would feel differently about the implica- tions of this question. But to understand women's willingness to prepare themselves, one needs an understanding of their past Opportu- nities to develop. The fourth question was included to understand how respon- dents viewed the issue of preparation. If they felt poorly prepared for their present job, it is unlikely they would be willing to under- take preparation for a different job. Data on these questions are presented in Tables 8, 10, 11, and 12. 42 Table 8.--Mean responses pertaining to willingness of supervisors to prepare for greater responsibility. Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors ’ Willingness to attend 5.435 a 5.041 2.329 <.02 evening school (1.797) (1.843) N=464 Willingness to . . 6.250 5.949 2.194 <.03 part'c'pate '" (1.403) (1.546) N=463 on-the-job training aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Analysis of the data in Table 8 indicates a significant dif- ference in men and women supervisors' willingness to prepare them- selves for positions of greater responsibility. On both items, the willingness to return to evening school and the willingness to par- ticipate in on-the-job training, there was a significant difference between men and women supervisors, with women supervisors expressing a higher degree of willingness pptp_to attend night school and par- ticipate in on-the-job training. Both men and women expressed a will- ingness to prepare for greater responsibility, with women expressing the stronger feeling. It might be suggested that women expressed a greater willing- ness to take training because the men already had a higher level of education, which they felt was sufficient--they didn't feel the need for further education. To explore this notion, educational level was held constant and the data reexamined. When education level was held constant, the mean responses were higher for women on both items, as shown in Table 9. 43 The data indicated that women supervisors were more willing than men supervisors to seek further education to prepare for posi- tions of greater responsibility. Table 9.--Mean responses of supervisors pertaining to willingness to prepare for greater responsibility, moderated by educational level of respondent. Willingness to Attend Evening Willingness to Participate in Educational Level School On-Job Training Women Men Women Men Supv. Supv. Supv. Supv. College Graduate 5.3 4.7 6.1 5.7 (1.74)a (1.84) (1.40) (1.22) High School Graduate, 5.7 5.3 6.4 6.1 Plus (1.59) (1.74) (1.09) (1.57) High School Graduate 5.4 5.0 6.2 5.9 (1.87) (1.90) (1.48) (1.74) Less than High 5.2 5.0 6.2 5.7 School Diploma (2.01) (2.08) (1.59) (1.30) aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Looking at the responses to these items by men and women sub- ordinates (Table 10), there was no significant difference in men and women subordinates' willingness to participate in on-the-job train- ing, or their willingness to attend evening school. but to a lesser degree than supervisors. Both were willing, 44 Table 10.--Mean responses pertaining to willingness of subordinates to prepare for greater responsibility. Women Men t P Subordinates Subordinates Willingness to attend 5.009 4.864 0.554 >.5 evening school (1.822)a (2.024) N=217 Willingness to . . . 5.758 5.804 -0.195 >.5 pa't'c'pate '" (1.746) (1.698) N=220 on-the-job training a 0 O O O I Numerals in parentheses 1nd1cate standard dev1ations. Turning to the opportunity to develop potential provided in the organization, shown in Table 11, there was no significant differ- ence between men and women, either at the supervisor or subordinate level. Again, subordinates felt less positive than supervisors on this item. Women subordinates felt slightly less positive than men about their opportunity to develop potential. This could explain why they expressed greater willingness than men subordinates to seek further education 'Thatisw because they felt they had had less of an opportunity to develop their potential, they perhaps felt more strongly the need to take advantage of educational opportunities. Regarding the matter of how adequately the organization pre- pared respondents to perform their present jobs, the data in Table 12 reveal there was no significant difference between men and women, either for supervisors or subordinates. Table ll.--Mean responses pertaining to opportunity to develop potential. 45 Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors Opportunity to 4.263 a 4.179 0.594 >.5 develop potential (1.553) (1.490) N=463 Women Men t P Subordinates Subordinates Opportunity to 3.442 3.712 -l.097 <.3 develop potential (1.764) (1.900) aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Table 12.--Mean responses pertaining to feeling prepared for present job. Women Men Supervisors Supervisors t P Organization prepared 4.796 a 4.624 1.144 <.3 me for present job (1.656) (1.561) N=461 Women Men t P Subordinates Subordinates Organization prepared 4.841 4.845 0.027 >.5 me for present job (1.714) (1.858) N=222 aNumerals in parentheses indicate standard deviations. 46 Summary Responses from both supervisors and subordinates revealed some differences regarding the willingness to prepare for greater responsibility. Women supervisors were significantly more willing than men to attend evening school and participate in on-the-job training. 0n the other hand, women subordinates' willingness to attend evening school and their willingness to participate in on-the-job training were ppt_significantly different than men subordinates'. Regarding the opportunity to develop potential and how adequately they were prepared to do their present job, there was no significant difference between men and women at either level. Based on this view of the data, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. There was unequal willingness to prepare for positions of greater responsibility, with women indicating more willingness than men. This finding was supported by data from another survey item, showing that 62 percent of the women respondents had attended company-funded training programs, whereas only 57 percent of the men respondents had attended such programs. However, a sampling of tuition- reimbursement records from the same company revealed that of those employes who had attended college-level courses on their own time, approximately 16 percent were women. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 holds that men and women supervisors are simi- larly willing to assume greater job responsibility. In the preliminary 47 interviews many managers felt that women supervisors were not willing to assume greater responsibility, thus limiting their potential for promotion. This issue has received much attention in the litera- ture, although little empirical evidence has been presented. What did the data from this study reveal? Three questions were asked of supervisors to determine their willingness to assume greater responsibility: To what extent would you be willing to assume greater job responsibilities? To what extent would you like your boss's job? To what extent do you feel you could perform your boss's job with the same degree of effectiveness as he/she does? The first question confronts the issue squarely. The second question assumes that desiring the boss's job is a strong indication of a willingness to assume greater responsibility. The third question is a more obtuse measure of the desire for more responsibility--with the assumption that those who do not feel they could perform the job effectively would probably not aspire to it. The responses to these questions are shown in Table 13. Analysis of these data presented, on the surface, an unclear picture. Regarding their willingness to assume greater job responsibilities, the mean responses of men and women supervisors were close to the .05 level of significance, although they were not, in fact, signifi- cant at that level. Concerning whether or not they would like their boss's job, men supervisors were significantly more desirous of the position than were women supervisors. Similarly, men supervisors were significantly 48 more confident than women supervisors that they could perform their boss's job as effectively as the boss was performing it. Table l3.--Mean responses pertaining to supervisor's willingness to assume greater responsibility. Women Men t P Supervisors Supervisors Willing to assume . 5.671 5.918 -1.803 .07 greater job a _ responsibilities (1'449) (1'505) "'455 Would like 4.033 5.028 -4.990 .001 boss's job (2.206) (2.046) N=459 Could perform boss's 3.886 5.073 -6.714 .001 job as effectively (2.027) (1.738) N=462 a . . . . . Numerals 1n parentheses indicate standard dev1ations. Because the data regarding the willingness to assume greater job responsibilities were so close to significance, a chi-square analysis was examined. The T-test approached significance on one of these survey items, but not on others. The data were regrouped, and the chi-square statistic analyzed. The results of this analysis are seen in Table 14. Few supervisors, men or women, indicated they were not very willing to assume greater job responsibility. A significantly larger proportion of men supervisors were very willing to assume greater responsibility, and a significantly larger proportion of women super- visors were only somewhat willing to assume greater responsibility. 49 Table l4.--Percentage responses of supervisors pertaining to assuming greater responsibility. Not Very Somewhat Very Willing Willing Willing Supervisor Women Supervisors 5.6% 37.8% 56.2% willing to assume Men Supervisors 8.3% 21.4% 70.4% greater responsibility Total 6.8% 30.3% 62.9% x2 = 15.32 p = .001 df = 2 §EEEEE¥. Although the mean responses on the question of willingness to assume greater job responsibility did not show a significant differ- ence, the chi-square analysis showed a significantly larger propor- tion of men supervisors were very willing to assume greater responsi- bility, whereas a significantly larger proportion of women supervisors were only somewhat willing to do so. Taking into account the significant difference that--to a higher degree than women supervisors--men supervisors desired their boss's job and were confident they could perform it as effectively, this increased willingness on the part of men supervisors led to the conclusion that men supervisors were significantly more willing than women supervisors to assume greater responsibility. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH In Chapter V the research is summarized by presenting a syn0psis of general study conclusions, followed by conclusions and training implications. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a presentation of further research possibilities. Synopsis of General StudyyConclusions Twenty-seven items from the Training Analysis Survey Instru- ment were analyzed in this study. These items represented the observations most germane to the four hypotheses being tested. For Hypothesis 1, six groups of managerial skills were established: 1. Skills in communication 2. Skills in delegating work 3. Skills in planning, organizing, and setting priorities 4. Skills in making decisions and solving problems 5. Skills in maintaining effective relationships 6. Skills in getting work done Eighteen survey items were analyzed within this grouping. Of those, only two showed any significant difference in perceived per- .formance between women and men supervisors. They were: Women shpervisors' quantity of work is more satisfying to their superiors; and subordinates perceive women supervisors to be more concerned with 50 51 the quality of subordinates' work. On the other sixteen items deal- ing with managerial skills, there was no significant difference in perceived performance between women supervisors and men supervisors. Regarding Quantity and guality of work, the results presented some interesting possibilities. It is frequently held by manufac- turing managers that emphasizing the need for high-Quality work (showing concern for the quality of subordinates' work) is the most effective way to achieve a high guantity of work. The reason for this is that high-quality work means less time and effort are devoted to repair and rework; thus more time and effort are devoted to pro- ducing quantity. Conversely, if the men supervisors are perceived as more concerned with quantity, then quality could suffer, with a resul- tant decrease in quantity. To test Hypothesis 2, responses to two items were analyzed. On both of these items there was no significant difference in per- ceived performance between women and men supervisors, indicating that women and men do not differ in their ability to handle crises or in overreacting to pressure. For Hypothesis 3 regarding the willingness to prepare for a position of greater responsibility, responses to four items were analyzed. 0f the four, two indicated a significant difference between women and men supervisors: Women supervisors, to a significant degree, are more willing to attend evening school than their men counterparts; and women supervisors, to a significant degree, are more willing to participate in on-the-job training than are their men counterparts. To those who believe that women could get ahead if 52 only they were willing to become qualified, these data should provide cause for reflection. To test Hypothesis 4, responses to three items were analyzed; all three indicated a significant difference. The data showed that men supervisors, to a significant degree, are more willing to assume greater job responsibilities than are their women counterparts. Conclusions and Training Implications The general conclusion of this research is that women super- visors are perceived to be as effective as men supervisors in per- forming their supervisory job--a contention that is either ignored or disputed by many people. By whatever means the women acquired their proficiency, it is clear that they have learned to perform as effec- tively as men. (At the moment, the standard for supervisory effec- tiveness is the experienced man supervisor. Perhaps the inclusion of more and more women supervisors will raise that standard of effectiveness, but only time will tell.) This tends to confirm the finding of Day and Stogdill that "male and female supervisors . . . exhibit similar patterns of leader behavior and levels of effec- tiveness. . . ."1 These data serve to refute many of the statements heard in the preliminary interviews, statements that indicated some managers perceived substantial differences in managerial skill between men and women supervisors. Generally, in these interviews, men supervisors were described more positively, based on some very nonspecific criteria. 1Day and Stogdill, Personnel Psycholggy, p. 359. 53 But, in fact, these data showed that the perceptions about women supervisors' effectiveness were strikingly similar to perceptions about the effectiveness of men supervisors. For those who believe men supervisors are more effective than women supervisors, these data will not support their belief--a fact that will come as a great disappointment. But the fact that in the two instances where there pp§_a significant difference, the woman was perceived to be mppe effective--that will be a great shock! Since a basic notion behind this research was that by identi- fying performance differentials, if any, one can identify correspond- ing training needs, then the absence of performance differentials (regarding managerial skills) indicates there are no differential training needs. This tends to support Killian's notion that "the same basic over-all training plan used for men can be used for women. . . ."1 As for training women to be effective supervisors, this research indicated they have no special training needs regarding their managerial skill. Thus, if one is satisfied with the level of super- visory effectiveness currently exhibited (equally by men and women), it would seem wise to continue the existing training and development programs, or at least make no adjustments in them to accommodate imaginary sex-based performance differences. Likewise, since women and men supervisors exhibit no signif- icant difference in reacting to pressure or dealing with crises, 1Killian, The Working Woman, p. 55. 54 no special training or developmental accommodations need be made here. In the hypothesis dealing with willingness to prepare oneself for positions of greater responsibility, women supervisors were significantly more willing than men to undertake such training, although the difference for women subordinates was not significant. What are the training implications of the fact that women super- visors are more willing than men to prepare for greater responsibility? If, as Killian stated, women do not have the "necessary edu- cational, technical, and motivational qualifications,"1 it is clear from this research that they are willing to get it. (It must be remembered, however, that this research did not indicate any lack of educational or technical qualifications--at least as it shows up in supervisory performance.) Thus, employers have the job of making available to women information, direction, and support pertaining to their seeking further instruction. Given this willingness of the student, employers must enroll women in their training programs, establish appropriate develop- mental activities and policies, and take the initiative in getting women into these activities. In the process of doing this research, some anecdotal evi- dence indicated that women find it quite difficult to be included in traditionally all-men student groups when only one or two women are in a group of fifteen to twenty men. They tend to feel unwelcome and lIbid., p. 13. 55 unsupported--their questions and contributions are mocked by their men counterparts, and they soon withdraw (either physically or men- tally) from the class. A certain minimum number of women partici- pants seems to be necessary--a "critical mass"--so that women can find recognition, support, and encouragement. This idea should be subjected to further research. The final hypothesis dealt with the willingness to assume greater job responsibility. Men supervisors indicated, to a sig- nificant degree, more willingness to assume greater job responsibil- ity than women supervisors. Since the hypothesis was rejected, an explanation was sought. Recall Manhardt's study showing that men rate as more impor- tant~those factors having to do with advancement/responsibility and long-range career success. He suggested this was because women (at least some of those in the study) did not expect to work more than a few years, and long-range career success was irrelevant.1 Loring and Wells quoted the president of a consumer goods firm: There are very few [women] who can stand the stress and strain of present day business without it affecting their family relationships. A woman enjoys an outlet from routine household chores, but very few choose toygo higher when it affects their home and families.‘ {Emphasis addedT] Epstein, talking about the decline of males and the increase of females in certain jobs, stated: 1Manhardt, Personnel Psychology, pp. 361-368. 2Loring and Wells, Breakthrough, p. 90. 56 Yet, it is still unclear why males have come to be excluded from many lower-level white collar jobs in which there are no defined masculine or feminine characteristics. Women may make better subordinates simply because they accept their position and do not aim higher.1 [Emphasis added.]' Wells strongly recommended self-concept training for women-- the implication being that their self-concept is not suitable for success in the business world.2 Korda held, "Women are not supposed to be ambitious; therefore ambition in women is generally regarded as a negative trait, even though it is highly praised in men."3 If women have this self-concept, then it is understandable that they, might not be willing to display their ambitions in a survey like the present one. This reluctance was strengthened by Day and Stogdill, who found that women's rate of advancement is not related to their effec- tiveness nor to other leadership characteristics.4 Given these circumstances, why demonstrate ambition? Why indicate a willingness to assume greater responsibility? Why run the risk of rejection? Why take such a chance when it is felt women are not going to advance anyway? There are precious few role models for women to see, and thus, no reason to believe that advancement is a realistic option. In addition, there is always a question of the employer's sincerity when the possibility of advancement comes up. 1Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Woman's Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), p. 158. 2Theodora Wells, "Woman's Self-Concept: Implications for Management Development," p. 306. 3Korda, Male Chauvinism, p. 34. 4Day and Stogdill, Personnel Psychology, p. 356. 57 All in all, it is psychologically safer for a woman not to indicate her ambition, whereas it is more or less expected of a man to strive for advancement. If this explanation is true, what are the training implica- tions? For the woman, training experiences need to be structured to deal with the self-concept issue. (This is frequently called "aware- ness" training.) Work is being done in this regard. But more importantly, the supervisors, managers, and execu- tives who make career decisions must be trained--trained to understand women's capabilities; trained to provide meaningful opportunities to women; trained to see the ways in which women's aspirations can be blunted; trained to forget cliches and stereotypes; trained to deal with the facts, not the myths. Wells stated it this way: The central change that needs to happen is a move away from per- ceiving men and women in the traditional sex-role patterns in the work environment . . . toward perceiving people as human beings first, seeking their own ways of growth, and who are defined only secondarily by their biological sex traits . . . this kind of change requires an organizational climate where individual growth is valued.1 To summarize, the data from this research led to the following conclusions: 1. Women who are supervisors, or about to become super- visors, should have essentially the same managerial skills training as men. 1Theodora Wells, "Woman's Self-Concept: Implications for Management Development," p. 307. 58 3. Men at the middle and upper levels need to be trained in more effective ways of seeing, understanding, and dealing with women's ambition and reluctance to express it. 4. Steps must be taken to establish policies and programs that will provide egupl opportunity for women to advance--to take advantage of their greater willingness to seek further instruction. Women should be involved in the development of such policies and programs. 5. Much more research is needed, and the results of such research must be given greater visibility, especially to managers and executives. Future Research Possibilities Not unexpectedly, the research raised some interesting issues, which could form the basis for future studies in this general field. Listed below are some possibilities: 1. The respondents in this research were a group of women and men supervisors who were matched on many traits, meaning that the perceived performance of women supervisors was related to the perceived performance of comparable men supervisors, rather than average or typical men or randomly selected men supervisors. One could expect that there would be a greater likelihood of difference (in perceived performance) if the groups were not matched. Another study could clarify this concern. 2. This research focused on the perceived performance (and thus training needs) of current supervisors. Very little was included 59 pertaining to potential supervisors, who might be in the surbordinate group or outside the organization. What are their training needs? 00 their needs differ according to sex? 3. This research raised some questions about raters' (or, in this case, perceivers') sex bias. 00 women supervisors perceive women subordinates differently than they perceive men subordinates? If so, how-~more positively? Do men supervisors perceive women subordinates differently than they perceive men subordinates? Do supervisors who supervise operations populated both by women and men subordinates perceive them differently than supervisors who have sub- ordinates of only one sex? 4. This research focused on perceptions, not behaviors. There is a need to study the specific behaviors of men and women supervisors pertaining to their promotability. 5. This study could be replicated in other firms, or a sampling from other firms, to determine the generalizability of the results. 6. More research should be done concerning the need for self- concept or awareness training for women. Again and again this issue came up, both in the literature and in this research. Answers must be found to such questions as: What effect does a woman's self-concept have on her potential for management? Can women's self-concept be changed through training? What type of training is most effective in changing self- concepts? APPENDICES 60 APPENDIX A TRAINING ANALYSIS SURVEY 61 APPENDIX A TRAINING ANALYSIS SURVEY The Training Analysis Survey instrument was administered, in three forms, to Superiors, Supervisors, and Subordinates. Each question began with the stern, "To what extent . . . ", and provided a seven point response scale: -— Not at all — To a very limited extent — To a limited extent — To some extent — To a great extent —— To a very great extent — Completely Listed below are questions from the survey. Some that were included in the printed form have been omitted here. A company policy would not permit reproduction of the actual instrument used. Items from Superiors Survey Form only To what extent . . . . . . 1. Does this subordinate keep you informed about job-related infor- mation? 2. Does this subordinate delegate work effectively? 3. Does this subordinate deal effectively with crises? 4. Is this subordinate effective at such activities as planning, orga- nizing and setting priorities? 5. Does this subordinate logically and effectively make decisions and solve problems? 6. Does this subordinate contribute to a harmonious working relation- ship with fellow workers? 7. Does this subordinate effectively utilize his/her peOple? 8. Does this subordinate meet work deadlines? 9. Are you satisfied with the quality of this subordinates work? 10. Does this subordinate understand the technical aspects of the job? 62 ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 63 Does this subordinate tend to become moody or hold grudges after disagreements or criticism? Does this subordinate respond positively to changes and/or suggestions? Does this subordinate demonstrate ambition and drive? Does this subordinate take long coffee breaks, come in late, take too many days off, etc. ? Are you satisfied with the quantity of this subordinates work? Does this subordinate frequently show his/her emotions? Items from both Supervisors and Subordinates Survey Forms The following questions are about your job and how you feel about it. Remember, your work group refers to all those people who report to the same immediate supervisor as you. To what extent . . . . . 00 \l 0‘ U1 14>- U) N t—I O C 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. Does your job give you a chance to use your own ideas? Would you be willing to assume greater job responsibilities? Do you want more freedom to determine how to do your job? Do you have the authority you need to meet your responsibilities? Does your job offer you personal satisfaction? Are your fellow workers receptive to your ideas? Do you have the information you need to carry out your job? Are you included in such activities as lunches, breaks, bull sessions, etc. , by persons in your work group? Are job titles important in your organization? Is your pay important in determining how hard you work? Would you be willing to return to school in the evening for more training? Would you be willing to participate in on-the-job training to learn a new job in your present organization? Would you like your boss' job? Do you feel you could perform your boss' job with the same degree of effectiveness as he/she does? Have you had the opportunity to develop your potential in this organization? 16. 17. 18. 19. 64 Are your job responsibilities clearly defined? Have you been exposed to different operations within your work area? Do you feel the organization adequately prepared you to perform your present job? How many company-funded management development courses have you attended? These next questions are about your supervisor. Remember, your supervisor is the person that you report to directly. To what extent . . . . . 1. 2. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Does your supervisor provide you with the information you need to schedule work ahead of time? Does your supervisor encourage those he/she supervises to develop better ways of doing things? Does your supervisor insist that he/she be kept informed on decisions made by persons under him? Are you able to influence your supervisors decisions and actions that affect you? Does your supervisor give work assignments in small non-related pieces? Is your supervisor impressed by titles and/or positions? Does your supervisor take an active interest in your job advance- ment. Does your supervisor put suggestions made by you or others in your work group into Operations? Is your supervisor concerned with the gualig of your work? Is your supervisor concerned with the guantiiiy of your work? Does your supervisor over-react to job pressures? Does your supervisor act without consulting you or others in your work group? Does your supervisor support you ~— "Back you up"? Does your supervisor understand your job? Does your supervisor communicate in detail how your job will be done? Does your supervisor go out of his/her way to praise good work? 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 65 Does your supervisor insist that those he/she supervises follow the rules? Does your supervisor favor certain employes? Does your supervisor hold grudges after disagreements or other conflicts? Does your supervisor behave in a moody or unpredictable manner? Is your supervisor overly concerned with such things as tardiness, absenteeism, long coffee breaks, etc. ? Does your supervisor become irritated by non-job related con- versation? Does your supervisor treat you as his/her equal? Items from Supervisors Survey Form only To what extent . . .. . . 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Do your subordiantes keep you informed about job-related infor- mation? Are you satisfied with the quality of your subordinates work? Do your subordinates deal effectively with crises? Are your subordinates effective at such activities as planning, organizing and setting priorities? Do your subordinates logically and effectively make decisions and solve problems? Do your subordinates contribute to a harmonious working relation- ship with fellow .workers? Do your subordinates contribute to a productive working relation- ship with fellow workers? Do your subordinates meet work deadlines? Are you satisfied with the quantity of your subordinates work? Do your subordinates understand the technical aspects of the job? Do your subordinates tend to become moody or hold grudges after disagreements or criticism? Are your subordinates responsive to changes and/or suggestions? Do your subordinates demonstrate ambition and drive? Do your subordinates take long coffee breaks, come in late, take too many days off, etc. ? APPENDIX B DATA PERTAINING TO WOMEN AND MEN SUPERVISORS 66 APPENDIX B DATA PERTAINING TO WOMEN AND MEN SUPERVISORS Number of Respondents 5.96. New M. 20-24 5 5 25-29 27 31 30-34 46 48 35-39 ' 31 34 40-44 39 30 45-49 51 33 50-54 40 24 55 and over 9 11 Marital Status meep_ Mep_ Married 147 194 Single 45 12 Divorced 48 9 Separated l Widowed 5 1 Other 2 Level of Formal Education meep_ Mep_ 8th grade or less 0 1 Completed 1 to 4 years high school 28 11 High school graduate or equivalent 121 77 Completed formal journeyman or technical program 8 3 Completed 1 to 4 years college 45 75 College graduate 22 30 Some graduate training 13 11 Masters, Ph.D., etc. 5 4 67 68 Years With Company_ figmep_ Meg. Less than 1 year 11 2 l to 2 years 5 8 2 to 3 years 8 3 3 to 4 years 3 8 4 to 5 years 12 13 5 to 10 years 65 52 10 to 15 years 33 34 15 to 25 years 62 70 25 years or more 49 27 Years on Present Job meep_ Mep_ Less than 1 year 108 78 1 to 2 years 82 29 2 to 3 years 9 21 3 to 4 years 10 18 4 to 5 years 4 ll 5 to 10 years 12 31 10 to 15 years 3 16 15 to 25 years 12 12 25 years or more 8 l BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartol, Kathryn M. "Male vs. Female Leaders: The Effect of Leader Need for Dominance on Follower Satisfaction." Academy of Management Journal 17 (June 1974): 225. Bond, Floyd; Leabo, Dick; and Swinyard, Alfred. Preparation for Business Leadership. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1964. Burke, R. "Differences in Perception of Desired Job Characteristics of the Opposite Sex." The Journal of Genetic Psychology 109 (1966): 27-46. Centers, R., and Bugental, D. E. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Moti- vation Among Different Segments of the Working Population." Journal of Applied Psychology 50 (1966): 193-97. Cleeton, Glen V., and Mason, Charles W. Executive Ability. Yellow Springs, Ohio: The Antioch Press, 1946. Crowley, J.; Levitin, T.; and Quinn, R. "Facts and Fictions About the American Working Woman." Unpublished paper, Survey Research Center, The University of Michigan, 1973. Day, David R., and Stogdill, Ralph M. "Leader Behavior of Male and Female Supervisors: A Comparative Study." Personnel Psy- chology 25 (1972): 353-360. Douvan, E., and Adelson, J. The Adolescent Experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966. Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. Woman's Place. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Hennig, Margaret. "Career Development for Women Executives." Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1970. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, 8.; Peterson, R.; and Capwell, 0. Job Atti- tudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburgh: Psycho- logical Service of Pittsburgh, 1957. Hoffman, L. W. "Early Childhood Experiences and Women's Achievement Motives." Unpublished paper, The University of Michigan, 1972. 70 71 Jennings, Eugene Emerson. The Mobile Manager: A Study of the New Generation of Top Executives. Ann Arbor: Bureau of Indus- trial Relations, 1967. Killian, Ray A. The Working Woman, A Male Manager's View. New York: American Management Association, 1971. Kilpatrick, F.; Cummings, M., Jr.; and Jennings, M. Source Book of a Study of Occupational Values and the Image of the Federal Service. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1964. Korda, Michael. Male Chauvinism: How It Works. New York: Random House, 1973. Loring, Rosalind, and Wells, Theodora. Breakthrough: Women Into Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,T1972. Manhardt, Philip J. "Job Orientation of Male and Female Colle e Graduates in Business." Personnel Psychology 25 (1972?: 361-368. Miles, Mathew 8. "Human Relations Training: Processes and Outcomes." Journal of Counseling Psychology 7 (April 1960): 301-306. Nevis, E. C.; Smith, Adair; and Harper, Robert. "Behavior and Atti- tude Changes Related to Laboratory Training." Training Directors Journal, February, 1965. Slevin, D. "Full Utilization of Women in Employment: The Problem and an Action Plan." Human Resource Management, The Univer- sity of Michigan, Spring, 1973. Smith, Ewart, and Knight, Stanford. "Effects of Feedback on Insight and Problem Solving Efficiency in Training Groups." Journal of Applied Psychology 43 (March 1959): 209-211. Tiedeman, David V., and O'Hara, Robert P. Career Development: Choice and Adjustment. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Wells, Theodora. "Women's Self-Concept: Implications for Management Development." Optimizing Human Resources. Edited by G. Lippitt, L. This, and R. Bidwell. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 1971. 72 General References Albrecht, Paul A.; Glaser, Edward M.; and Marks, John. "Validation of a Multiple-Assessment Procedure for Managerial Personnel." Journal of Applied Psychology 48 (December 1964). Background Facts on Women Workers in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Women's Bureau, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 1968. Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Garyi Human Behavior. New York: _Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1964. Blake, Robert, and Mouton, Jane S. The Managerial Grid: Key Orien- tations for Achieving Production Through People. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964. Cohen, Malcolm 5. "Sex Differences in Compensation." The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. I, No. 4. Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Dill, William R.; Hilton, Thomas L.; and Reitman, Walter R. The New Managers. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. Dooher, M. Joseph, and Marting, Elizabeth. Selection of Management Personnel. New York: American Management Association, 1957. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1963. Ginzberg, S. W.; Axelrod, S.; and Herma, J. L. Occupational Choice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Co., Inc., 1966. Levitin, Teresa; Quinn, Robert; and Staines, Graham. "Sex Dis- crimination Against the American Working Woman." American Behavioral Scientist 15 (November/December 1971). Lewis, Edwin C. Developing Women's Potential. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1968. Lynda, Edith M. The Executive Suite--Feminine Style. New York: American Management Association, 1973. 73 Perrella, Vera C. "Women and the Labor Force." Monthly Labor Review, February 1968. Rayburn, Letricia Gayle. "Do Women Discriminate Against Each Other?" The National Public Accountant, October 1971. Rigel, John W. Executive Development. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1952. Sands, Edith. How to Select Executive Personnel. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1963. / Shaw, Edward A. "Differential Impact of Negative Stereotyping in Employe Selection." Personnel Psychology 25 (1972). Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 1953. Super, Donald. "A Theory of Vocational Development." Vocational Guidance Development. Edited by Peters and Hansen. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. "111111111111'111111111“