THE ROLE OF FORMER JOB-TASK
EXPERIENCE IN THE CAREER
ADVANCEMENT PROCESS
Do communal and/or agentic job-tasks affect
career outcomes for men and women?
Jeanne Viergever | 11388730 | Thesis Leadership & Management | Amsterdam Business School | Business Administration | Leadership & Management | Tanja Hentschel | 22nd of June
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Jeanne Viergever who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this
document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Abstract
The underrepresentation of women in management positions is a matter of societal concern. From an ethical point of view, men and women should have equal chances resulting in equal representation of men and women in top leadership. This study examines whether exposure to former job-task affects career advancement decisions, as an outcome variable to understand and assess how people respond to agentic or communal former job-task
experience. Former job-task experience is of importance because it has the possibility to reduce the gender bias effect because the information emphasizes a person’s agency and competence. This study used a 2x2x2 experimental design. Findings suggest that employees with either agentic or communal job-task experience have equal chances to get a promotion, regardless of gender. The recommendations for managers, recruiters and HR professionals who engage in career advancement is to base promotion decisions on former job-task experience and integrate this type of information criteria in their career advancement
procedure. They also have to be aware of the potential gender bias in selection or promotion procedures. Furthermore, organizations should engage in the development of communal traits among future leaders because these traits are important for the development of
transformational leaders.
Keywords: gender bias; career advancement; former job-task experience; agency;
4
Introduction
Women have made great strides in the workforce participation, but they still are underrepresented in so-called male-typed occupations and fields (Heilman, 2012). Women only comprised 19,0 % of the corporate boards of the top 100 companies in the Netherlands in 2016 (CBS/SCP, 2016). Conversely, women increasingly pursue traditionally male careers, and there are more women in roles of power and authority (Catalyst, 2016). Literature shows that scarcity of women in high job positions occurs despite the necessary experience,
education, and skills (Heilman, 2012). Therefore, inequality between men and women in the workplace continues to be an issue.
Research on gender in the workplace has shown inconsistent findings regarding women in management functions. Some literature states that diversity in top management functions and women in leadership roles have a positive relationship with a company’s performance (Smith, Smith & Verner, 2006). However, Adams (2016) states that it is not yet clear if the promotion of women leads to better firm performance. From an ethical point of view, men and women should have equal chances with the result of equal representation of men and women in top leadership. Therefore, gender equality in the workplace is of
importance.
Sex segregation literature suggests that gender stereotypes are the basis of biased evaluative judgments and discrimination towards women in the workplace (Heilman 1983; Heilman, 2012; Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). Gender stereotypes are generalizations and expectations about what people are like and should be like (Heilman, 2001). Furthermore, they are a part of a culture’s shared knowledge (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). Overall, gender stereotypes describe men as more agentic and women as more communal (Carlsson
Agerström, Björklund, Carlsson & Rooth, 2014; Heilman, 2001; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Communality could be described as traits that refer to the sympathetic treatment of others (Eagly & Szesny, 2009). In contrast, agency could be described as traits that refer to assertion and control (Eagly & Szesny, 2009). These phenomena are rooted in the social role theory which argues that stereotypes are based on observations of people’s behaviors in gender-typical social roles (Eeagly, Wood & Diekman, 2000; Koenig & Eagly, 2008).
According to this theory, men were traditionally described as breadwinner and women used to have the role as a homemaker which requires agentic and communal characteristics
respectively. Additionally, agentic traits are seen as similar to the qualities perceived to be needed for success in managerial functions (Cejka & Eagly, 1999), but are less in line with the gender stereotype of women (Heilman, 2012). Consequently, the gender bias may arise
5
from a lack of fit between women’s characteristics and the characteristics assumed to be necessary for performing successfully in male-typed jobs.
In the career advancement process, decisions are not just based on gender but also on prior work experience. Research has shown that women can differentiate themselves among other candidates when unambiguous information is present about their competence and achieved role because it provides information about their agency (Heilman, Wallen,Fuchs & Tamkins, 2004; Bosak & Szesny, 2011; Pinto, Patanakul & Pinto, 2017). However, women might experience hurdles when they do have a job position that is associated with and dominated by men. When women are in settings that are more in line with the female stereotype, it is more likely that they experience fewer barriers (Ridgeway 2001; Swim, Borgida, Maruyama & Myers, 1989). Although woman face fewer barriers in female-typed jobs, which are defined as having lower status, being less difficult, and being less prestigious, these jobs may impede career advancement, promotion chances, and salary increase (Chan & Anteby, 2016; Glick, Wilk & Perreault, 1995).
Within gender inequality research, sex segregation is a concept that has been examined extensively. It largely focuses on material outcomes such as the wage gap and sex segregation of workers once they are employed (Blau & Kahn, 2000; Blau & Kahn, 2007; Fernandez & Sosa, 2005). However, the sex segregation literature does not seek to explain inequality in outcomes within a given job and it neglects the importance of work content (e.g. actual tasks that people have within their job) (Chan & Anteby, 2016). Only a few studies looked at the downstream career consequences (Fernandez & Mors, 2008; Fernandez & Friedrich, 2011; Pinto et al., 2017). More specifically, Pinto et al. (2017) show that former task experience is important in the career advancement process. Some tasks (e.g. agentic tasks) might, therefore, give the impression that the employee is a better fit, and more competent to higher positions than others (e.g. communal tasks).
Unfortunately, sex segregation also exists within tasks (Chan & Anteby, 2016, Stein, Aragon, Moreno & Goodman, 2014; De Pater, Van Vianen, & Bechtoldt, 2010). For example, literature suggests that women are less likely to be assigned to challenging tasks that are needed for managerial functions than men (de Pater et al., 2010; Chan & Anteby, 2016). It is even possible that one group of workers spends all the time allocated to certain tasks within a job, being almost completely excluded from other tasks (Chan & Anteby, 2016). Furthermore, task allocation research has shown that women often are allocated to more communal tasks and men are often allocated to agentic tasks resulting in task segregation (Chan & Anteby, 2016; Stein et al., 2014). For example, men are allocated to tasks that are
achievement-6
oriented and women are allocated to tasks that are more people-oriented. This is a potential mechanism for within job-inequality (Chan & Anteby, 2016). Therefore, it is of importance that research examines career mechanisms, consequences, and outcomes in general.
As a result, this research seeks to extend prior sex segregation literature by examining the career advancement process in which men and women have former job-task experience (e.g. agentic/communal) which is necessary for a managerial job. Career advancement refers to the upward trajectory of an individual’s career. Additionally, it seeks to find the relation of former job-task experience that is in contrast with gender stereotypes and career advancement decisions. Furthermore, this research contributes to the literature about mechanisms which might cause sex segregation in the workplace. Would people choose a well-qualified person over a less-qualified person for career advancement, regardless of gender and stereotypical beliefs? Or would people choose based on other criteria? The following research question has been conducted: To what extent does former job-task experience influence career outcomes
for men and women?
Theoretical Framework
Gender inequality in the workplace
The existence of gender inequality in the workplace, specifically in the management area, has already been discussed and researched since the 1960s (e.g. Megargee, 1969). Gender characteristics could be important in the evaluation of men and women during career advancement (Rice & Barth, 2016). Due to gender stereotypes, biased evaluative judgments and discrimination towards women occur which might hinder women’s career advancement. One of the first things that people notice about others is whether a person is female or male. Based on gender, we immediately categorize people when we first meet them (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). The first impression of someone evokes associations and/or expectations of men and women which are also called gender stereotypes (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009).
Gender stereotypes are rooted in society’s division of labor between the sexes described in the ‘social role theory’ (Eagly, Wood & Diekman, 2000; Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Koenig & Eagly, 2008). Two phenomena predominate in these associations: agency and communality (Heilman, 2001; Heilman 2012; Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). The social role theory suggests that people’s beliefs about the sexes are derived from the observed gender typical role performances of men and women. Traditionally, men used to be breadwinners and women used to be caretaker. The social role theory suggests that both roles require
7
communality denotes the concern and sympathetic treatment of others, warm and friendly tendencies, devotion and emotional sensitivity (Heilman, 2012; Eagly & Szesny, 2009). On the other hand, agency denotes achievement orientation, assertion, control, rationality, autonomy and ambition (Heilman, 2012; Eagly & Szesny, 2009). Hereby, women are more likely to have primary domestic roles than men, whereas men are more likely than women to be primary family providers (Eagly, Wood & Diekman, 2000).
Applying this to a workplace setting, it becomes clear that gender stereotypes remain influential (Ridgeway, 2001). For example, Cejka and Eagly (1999) state that people
generally see leaders as more similar to men than to women which relates to the ‘think-manager-think-male’ phenomenon. The ‘think-‘think-manager-think-male’ phenomenon shows that it is still difficult for women to be in top leadership positions because managers are often associated with men (Schein, 2001).
This bias effect could be explained by Heilman’s (1983) ‘Lack of Fit’ model. This model explains the lack of fit between “the perception of an individual’s attributes and the perception of the job’s requirements in terms of skills and abilities” (Heilman, 1983, p. 278). When this is applied to women in the management field, it becomes clear that skills and abilities required for managerial jobs do not correspond with the stereotypes that characterize women (Heilman, 1983; Eagly & Karau, 2002). More specifically, agentic characteristics are thought to be needed for positions higher up in the hierarchy, while women often are
perceived as more communal.
Managerial sex-role stereotyping revealed that the biggest hurdle for women in
management functions is the stereotype that associates managerial roles with being agentic. In addition, women’s inability to be perceived as equally qualified as male candidates, which is called ‘social category bias effect’, may cause barriers in the career advancement process (Pinto et al., 2017). Furthermore, due to stereotype-based beliefs that women should be protected, women receive limited exposure to challenging assignments in the workplace which also might explain the underrepresentation of women in top job functions (King et al., 2012). Consequently, women striving for management functions may face barriers and gender bias in the career advancement process, which might impede promotion opportunities to get higher up in the organizational hierarchy.
Reducing the gender bias effects by former job-task experience
Little research has focused on former job-task experience in relation to career
8
the tasks, complexity of the tasks and the responsibilities performed in a job by which people handle critical work situations (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). In the career advancement process, stereotyping against women is likely when there is little information available that
differentiates the woman from other candidates (Landy, 2008). More specifically, stereotypes occur strongest when there is ambiguity (Gerdes & Garber, 1983; Heilman, 2001; Bosak & Sczesny, 2011). However, several studies found that gender stereotypical judgments could be eliminated in the presence of unambiguous information (e.g. former job-task experience) and when the information clearly indicated high competence of those being evaluated (Heilman et al., 2004; Koch, D’Mello & Sackett, 2015; Pinto et al., 2017). For example, Pinto et al. (2017) found that equally qualified candidates with strong task-orientation and competence did not experience gender bias effects in hiring situations. In addition, Bosak & Szesny (2011) state that when information about one’s achieved role is present, the difference in evaluation of men and women for leadership roles should be reduced or eliminated because the information emphasizes the person’s agency and competence. Thus, the provision of agentic task
information may ameliorate effects of gender stereotypes because it is in line with what is thought to be necessary for managerial jobs. Hereby, women that show agentic task experience are likely to possess agentic characteristics and therefore may fit higher
management positions. This shows that task information could outweigh gender information and might help overcome the gender bias in the career advancement process, especially for women. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been conducted:
H1: Both men and women who have experience working on agentic tasks in the past have higher chances on career advancement than those who have experience working on communal tasks in the past.
Management competence as a mediator
Several studies found that previous work experience, attitudes, knowledge, and skills are part of professional competence (Paloniemi, 2006; Stanley, Al-Shehri & Thomas, 1993). Competence, in general, is seen as the qualities possessed by an individual regarding
intelligence, power, efficacy, knowledge, and skills (Stanley, Al-Shehri & Thomas, 1993; Cuddy, Glick & Beninger, 2011). In this research, management competence is of importance. Management competence could be described as the qualities possessed by an individual regarding management and leadership skills. Management competence is more closely associated with the stereotype of men than of women and therefore involves agentic
9
characteristics (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Biernat, Crandall, Young, Kobrynowicz & Halpin, 1998). Additionally, women with communal traits often are evaluated as less competent in general (Biernat, 2009). Research has shown that perceived competency is positively linked to hiring decisions and specifically to managerial positions (Heilman, Block & Lucas, 1992; Crawford, 2005). So, when information about one’s achieved role and former job-task experience, which emphasizes the person’s agency and competence, is present, it is more likely that the gender bias is eliminated and both women and men will be perceived as highly competent. On the other hand, when the information provided is of communal nature, people will not perceive the person as highly competent because they cannot identify agentic
characteristics which they can connect with management competence. Therefore, it is likely that people will link management competence with the employee’s agentic task experience, but not with the employee’s communal task experience. Consequently, it is likely that former job-task experience leads to better recommendation through perceived management
competence. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been conducted:
H2: The effect of job-task experience on career advancement recommendations will be mediated by perceived management competence.
Social dominance orientation as a moderator
There are differences in how strongly people adhere to stereotypes. These can
influence how people evaluate others in the workplace. One of these individual differences is social dominance orientation. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is an individual-level attitudinal orientation toward group relations and part of the social dominance theory (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994). SDO could be described as the extent to which one prefers intergroup relations to be equal versus hierarchical (Pratto et al., 1994). In this study, it describes the extent to which one desires that men (or women) dominate and are superior to women (or men). Moreover, SDO explains that people high in SDO tend to hold on to their stereotypes and ideologies to maintain social hierarchies and dominant social status (Pratto et al., 1994).
According to several types of research, SDO is a powerful predictor of stereotyping (e.g. Alexandra, 2018) and it could play a dominant role in the judgments of people as well (Altemeyer, 1998; Ho et al., 2012; Pratto, Sidanius & Levin, 2006). People high in SDO prefer relations to be hierarchical instead of equal, which could indicate that they hold on to beliefs of men and women in their traditional (stereotypical) roles. In other words, when an
10
evaluator holds ‘socially dominant’ beliefs (e.g. women and men in traditional gender roles), it is possible that, despite the correct former job-task experience and competence, the woman will not get career advancement opportunities because she doesn’t show characteristics that are congruent with the beliefs of the evaluator. Hereby, gender information could outweigh job-task experience. Following this reasoning, it is to be expected that people low in SDO, will have higher perceptions of women’s competence and see men and women more equally than people high in SDO. Therefore, the following hypotheses have been conducted:
H3a: People low in SDO will focus on former job-task experience and will evaluate men and women to have equal chances on career advancement.
H3b: People high in SDO will focus on gender and will evaluate men to have higher chances on career advancement than women independent of former task experience.
Conceptual Framework
This conceptual framework describes the relations between all variables. It is expected that former job-task experience will have an effect on career advancement decisions through management competence. Furthermore, it is expected that social dominance and target gender will moderate the effect of former job-task experience on perceived management competence and career advancement decisions. For the first hypothesis, an ANOVA analysis with
‘condition’ as the independent variable and ‘career advancement decisions’ as the dependent variable was conducted. For the second and the third hypotheses, two moderated-mediation
Evaluator Social
Dominance
Orientation
Perceived
Management
Competence
Former Job-Task
Experience
Target Gender
Career
Advancement
Decisions
11
regression analyses with ‘condition’ as the independent variable, ‘target gender’ as the
moderator, ‘management competence’ as the mediator, and ‘career advancement decisions’ as the dependent variable were conducted with the use of Process model 8 (Hayes, 2017).
Methods
Design
In order to test the hypotheses of this study, an experiment embedded in a web-based survey was performed (see Appendix I). This study used a 2 (Former Job-Task Experience: agentic tasks versus communal tasks) x 2 (Target gender: man versus woman) x 2 (Evaluator social dominance orientation: low versus high) experimental design with all factors being varied between-subjects.
Sample
A convenience sample of close relationships and networks has been used. The sample for this study includes 175 participants of which 61,7% were female (N = 108) and 38,3% were male (N = 67). The participants were between 19 and 71 years old with an average of 28,89 years old (SD = 10,44). In this sample, 88 % of the participants were of Dutch nationality and only 12 % comprised other nationalities. Furthermore, 94,3 % of the participants are highly educated. Additionally, 37,7 % of the participants have a primary occupation as an employee and 56,6% is primarily a student. The participants had between 0 and 40 years of work experience with an average of 8,13 years, either part-time or full-time (SD = 9.32). Also, 16% of the participants are currently in a leadership position, 28,2% had a leadership position in the past and 55,8% have no leadership experience at all. All participants were randomly assigned to the conditions (Na = 47, Nb = 46, Nc = 43, Nd = 39). Furthermore, no people were excluded from the original sample. The experiment was online from the 1st of May till the 21st of May 2018.
Procedure
The experiment was distributed online via Facebook, LinkedIn, SurveyCircle and e-mail. For a detailed list on which (social media) websites the experiment was distributed, and the invitation sent by e-mail, see appendix III. Before taking part in the experiment, the participants were informed about the subject of the experiment, the ethical code, and their anonymity. Participants were told that the study is interested in promotion decisions in organizational settings. After reading this informed consent, a brief introduction of the study
12
was shown, the role of the participant was explained and the elements that were more to follow were described. In the introduction, participants were told that this study is interested in the screening of employees in a large company and how decision makers form impressions and make their screening decisions. They were also told that the study is interested in first impressions based on very minimal information. Furthermore, they were told that they had to review an employee who was randomly selected from a larger set of employees considered for a promotion.
Next, participants were exposed to the experimental manipulation, in which participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. In these conditions, participants were exposed to an internal form of either a male or female employee which contains former job-task experience as the experimental manipulation: a) agentic task - woman b) communal task - woman, c) agentic task - man and d) communal task - man. The internal form describes the candidate’s former job-task experience in the same company (agentic vs. communal), professional background and personality characteristics. First, the participants were exposed to the company’s internal employee form followed by an
evaluation of the employee’s performance (rated by a co-worker). Next, they were asked to give their reactions on a brief questionnaire, indicating whether they thought the employee should have career advancement and whether the employee is highly competent. After, they were asked to give their reactions to social dominance orientation questions. It is important to note that the SDO scale was measured and not manipulated. The experiment ended with questions regarding demographics.
Stimuli and manipulation
Four versions of a brief internal application form were created. The company’s name that was used for the manipulation is ‘Hayward Industries’. Regarding gender, two names, Lisanne den Hartog and Stefan den Hartog respectively female and male, were used to represent the candidate. Additionally, two pictures were used to represent the gender of the candidate. These pictures were tested in previous research and no effect was found on
attractiveness and competence. Regarding former job-task experience, two tasks were used to represent the former work experience of the employee. The agentic task information
contained information about departmental negotiation responsibilities. For example: “Defend your interests during the negotiation and take a hard line with the other negotiation parties”. These tasks are mainly achievement-oriented. The communal task information contained information about needs assessment responsibilities. For example: “Be approachable and
13
responsive with regard to requests and wishes of the department members”. These tasks are mainly people-oriented. For a copy of the stimuli, see appendix II.
Operationalization
Evaluator Social Dominant Orientation (SDO) – Evaluator SDO is a moderator
variable. A set of 7 items measured participants’ SDO. The original scale consisted of 16 items and was constructed by Pratto et al. (1994). The participants could answer the questions on a seven-point Likert scale, ranked from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. One sample item is “All groups should be given an equal chance in life”. The higher the
participants scored on this scale, the less socially dominant oriented they were. A reliability analysis showed that Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is α = .828 (M = 4.86, SD = 1.16). Additionally, this scale was split into a dichotomous variable. Therefore, the median was calculated (4.1429). Participants who initially scored below 4.1429 were assigned to the 0 = high SDO condition and participants who initially scored above 4.1429 were assigned to the 1 = low SDO condition.
Career Advancement Decisions – Career advancement decisions is a dependent
variable. The scale measured recommendations for a promotion plus the likelihood of success, high performance, and promotion and consists of 5 items. Examples of the items are “How strongly would you recommend that this employee is considered further for a promotion? and “How likely do you think this person is to be a high performer?”. The participants could answer the questions on a seven-point Likert scale, ranked from 1 = not at all strongly, very unlikely to 7 = very strongly, very likely. The higher the participants scored on this scale, the more the target will have chances on career advancement. In an exploratory factor analysis, all five items loaded with an explanatory variance of 65,46 %. The five items had a
component load higher than .777. A reliability analysis showed that Cronbach’s alpha for these five items was α = .867 (M = 5.51, SD = .76).
Management Competence – Management competence is a mediator variable. A set of
10 items measured the perceived competence of the gender target. The scale was constructed by questions such as “To what extent do you think this employee: a) is a leader, b) has top leadership potential, c) relies on others?” The participants could answer the questions on a seven-point Likert scale, ranked from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much. The higher the participants scored on this scale, the more they perceived the target gender as competent. A reliability analysis of all items showed a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .707 (M = 4.61, SD = .62).
14
For detailed information about the items that were used for the different scales, see appendix IV.
Randomization check
To check if random assignment to conditions was successful, first, a MANOVA with the conditions as the independent variable and age as the dependent variable was conducted. No main effect of all four conditions on age was found, F(3, 170) = 0.77, p = .514, η2 = .01. In addition, a post-hoc Scheffe test showed that age was not significant (p = .545). This indicates that no differences existed between conditions on age; so, randomization on this variable was successful. Second, to check the distribution between conditions for gender, Chi-square tests were conducted. No significant differences between conditions on gender were found, Χ2 (3) = 4.36, p = .225. Randomization of gender, thus, was also successful.
Results
Correlations and group means
First, a correlation analysis was conducted between all variables of interest. A significant strong correlation was found between management competence and career
advancement (r = .52, p <.05). Career advancement is also significantly correlated with social dominance orientation, but the correlation is not very strong (r = .17, p <.001). For more specified outcomes, see table 1.
Table 1. Overall Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.
Note. * p<.001 ** p<.05. Target gender is coded as 0 woman, 1 man. SDO is coded as 0 high, 1 low.
Second, an ANOVA with former job-task experience, target gender and social dominance as independent variables and career advancement as the dependent variable was
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Age 28.89 10.44 - 2. Gender 1.62 0.49 -.23** - 3. Education 5.10 1.02 -.21** .15* - 4. Occupation 2.26 1.05 -.46** .21** .04 - 5. Career Advancement 5.51 0.76 -.15* .07 -.05 .12 (.867) 6. Social Dominance Orientation 4.07 0.71 -.15 .10 -.14 .28** .17* (.828) 7. Management Competence 4.61 0.62 -.06 .06 -.19* .09 .52** .21** (.707) 8. Target Gender 1.47 0.50 -.14 .12 .19 -.04 -.02 .04 .01 1
15
conducted. Neither main effects nor interaction effects were found. For the ANOVA results, see table 2. For means and standard deviations of all groups, see table 3.
Table 2. ANOVA main and interaction effects for dependent measure career advancement.
Main effects Interaction effects
Former job-task experience F(1,167) = .25, p = .621 Former job-task * Target gender
F(1,167) = .52, p = .470
Target gender F(1,167) = .10, p = .750 Former job-task * Social dominance orientation
F(1,167) = .80, p = .373
Social dominance orientation F(1,167) = 1.37, p = .243 Target Gender * Social dominance orientation
F(1,167) = .02, p = .900
Former job-task * Target gender * Social dominance orientation
F(1,167) = .00, p = .982
Table 3. Means (standard deviations) for dependent measure career advancement.
Job task: Agentic Job task: Communal
Target: woman Target: man Target: woman Target: man
SDO high SDO low SDO high SDO low SDO high SDO low SDO high SDO low 5.36 (.90) 5.59 (.63) 5.39 (.77) 5.65 (.43) 5.61 (.94) 5.63 (.75) 5.57 (.78) 5.52 (.56)
Note. N = 175. Ratings were given on a 7-point Likert scale in which higher scores indicate higher chances on career advancement. No control variables were used.
Evaluations of career advancement
To test hypothesis 1, if there is a main effect of former job-tasks on career advancement decisions, a one-way ANOVA with the former job-task experience as the independent variable and career advancement as the dependent variable was conducted. This analysis showed no significant difference between conditions for career advancement, F(3, 171) = 0.45, p = .717, η2 = .01. Additionally, a post-hoc Scheffe test showed no significant results between conditions (p = .752). This means that either communal or agentic job task information has no difference for career advancement decisions. With either agentic or communal former job-task experience there is the same chance to get a promotion, regardless if the target is male or female. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is rejected.
16 Moderated-mediation analyses
To test hypothesis 2, 3a and 3b, two moderated-mediation regression analyses were conducted with former job-task experience as the independent variable, career advancement as the dependent variable, management competence as a mediator and target gender as a moderator. The file was split in low and high social dominance orientation (median = 4.1429) and the model that was used is process model 8 with 5,000 bootstraps and 95% bias
correction. The model was tested for both groups separately. Firstly, the results will be reported for people low in social dominance orientation. Next, the results will be reported for people high in social dominance orientation.
Results for people low in social dominance orientation
For people low in social dominance orientation (N = 73), the results indicate that the effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions is not conditioned by target gender, as evidenced by an interaction that is not significant (b = -.18, SE = .26 p = .495). Also, no moderated-mediation effect takes place (b = .01, SE = .33, p = .987). A closer inspection of the conditional effects indicates that neither a direct nor an indirect effect were moderated by target gender for people low in social dominance orientation.
The proposed indirect effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions via management competence was not significant, being not significantly present among both female and male target genders (b = .01, SE = .09, LLCI = -.171, ULCI = .219; b = .02, SE = .08, LLCI = -.134, ULCI = .173). No direct effect of former job-task experience on management competence was found (b = .03, SE = .23, p = .883). However, a direct effect of management competence on career advancement decisions was found (b = .386, SE = .09,
p <.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Additionally, the proposed direct relationship between former job-task experience and career advancement decisions is not significantly different between people who had to
evaluate females (b = .03, SE = .18, p = .880) and people who had to evaluate males (b = -.15,
SE = .18, p = .417). For people with low social dominance orientation, both groups have the
same the same chance to get a promotion. This is in line with the expectation that people low in social dominance orientation perceive men and women to be equally promotable.
17
Figure 1. Moderated-mediation results of regression analysis for people low in social dominance orientation.
Note.
ᵦ
-Values (standard errors) indicated in parentheses; * p<.001 Results for people high in social dominance orientationFor people high in social dominance orientation (N = 102), the results indicate that the effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions is neither conditioned by target gender, as evidenced by an interaction that is not significant (b = .01, SE = .28, p = .987). Also, no moderated-mediation effect takes place (b = -.19, SE = .22, p = .400). A closer inspection of the conditional effects indicates that neither a direct nor an indirect effect were moderated by target gender for people high in social dominance orientation.
The proposed indirect effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions via management competence was not significant, being not significantly present among both female and male target genders (b = .13, SE = .14, LLCI = -.130, ULCI = .390; b = -.03, SE = .16, LLCI = -.385, ULCI = .251). No direct effect of former job-task experience on management competence was found (b = .15, SE = .15, p = .327). However, a direct effect of management competence on career advancement decisions was found (b = .89, SE = .12, p <.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Additionally, the proposed direct relationship between former job-task experience and career advancement decisions is not significantly different between people who had to
evaluate females (b = .11, SE = .19, p = .549) and people who had to evaluate males (b = .12,
SE = .21, p = .568). For people high in social dominance orientation, both groups have the
same chance to get a promotion. This is not in line with the expectation that people high in
.028 (.183) Former Job-Task Experience Evaluator Social Dominance Orientation Perceived Management Competence Target Gender Career Advancement Decisions
18
social dominance orientation perceive men to be more promotable than women. Therefore, hypothesis 3b is rejected. For the relationship between the variables, see figure 2.
Figure 2. Moderated-mediation results of regression analysis for people high in social dominance orientation.
Note.
ᵦ
-Values, (standard errors) indicated in parentheses; * p<.001 Exploratory analysesIn an exploratory factor analysis of the original management competence scale, two components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 55,32 % of the variance. The items that cluster on the same factors suggest that factor 1 represents own behavior of the target gender, and factor 2 represents a collaboration of the target gender with others. These scales could respectively be indicated as agentic competence and
communal competence. A reliability analysis of the items that cluster on factor 1 showed a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .849 (M = 4.85, SD = .85) and a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .662 (M = 4.23, SD = .89) for factor 2. Since the management competence scale loaded on two factors, additional analyses have been performed to see the difference between management
competence that represents own behavior of the target, and management competence that represents a collaboration of the target with others. To see if any relations between the variables change by using these scales, additional regression analyses with former job-task experience as the independent variable, communal/agentic management competence as mediators, target gender as a moderator and career advancement as the dependent variable were performed with process model 8. Again, the analyses were performed separately for people high and low in SDO.
.113 (.188) Evaluator Social Dominance Orientation Perceived Management Competence Former Job-Task Experience Target Gender Career Advancement Decisions
19
Regarding the agentic management competence scale, the results indicate that agentic management competence has a direct effect on career advancement for both people low in SDO (b =.40, SE = .07, p<.001) and high in SDO (b = .63, SE = .08, p<.001). No other significant relations were found for this scale. Additionally, an ANOVA with agentic management competence and communal management competence as independent variables and career advancement decisions as the dependent variable was conducted. The results also show that agentic management competence has a significant relation with career advancement for people low and respectively high in SDO (F(16, 14) = 2.45, p = .045; F(14, 14) = 1.55, p = .211). This indicates that the higher the perceived agentic management competence, the higher chances on career advancement (M = 4.75, SD = .84) when compared to communal management competence (M = 4.18, SD = .89). It seems that when agentic management competence is identified, those people will have higher chances on career advancement. When communal management competence is identified, it does not make a difference for career advancement.
Regarding the communal management competence scale, the results from the regression analysis show a direct effect of job-task information on communal management competence, but only for people high in SDO (b = .46, SE = 23 p = .046). Additionally, a MANOVA with former job-task experience as independent variable and communal
management competence and agentic management competence as dependent variables was performed. The results show that former job-task experience only has an effect on communal management competence (F(3, 98) = 1.05, p = .041) compared to agentic management competence (F(3, 98) = 2.86, p = .374). People high in SDO link communal task experience, compared to agentic task experience, to higher communal management competence. For the means and standard deviations of each condition with communal management competence as the dependent variable, see table 4.
Table 4. Means (standard deviations) for dependent measure communal management competence.
Man Woman
Agentic Task 3.92 (.87) 3.94 (.93) Communal Task 4.47 (.89) 4.44 (.75)
Note. N = 102. Ratings were given on a 7-point Likert scale in which higher scores indicate higher communal management competence. No control variables were used.
20
Discussion
Theoretical implications
The general aim of the study was to examine the effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions. It addressed the gap in prior sex segregation literature of career mechanisms, consequences, and outcomes in general. Looking at the findings, this study showed that there was no difference between career advancement decisions for people with agentic or communal former task experience. Furthermore, the effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions was not mediated by perceived management competence. Additionally, the findings show that there was no moderating effect of target gender and social dominance orientation. People high in SDO and low in SDO perceived men and women to be equally promotable. Both employees have the same chances on career advancement whether an evaluator is high or low in SDO.
Previous research remains ambiguous as to whether communal or agentic task
experience causes differences in career advancement decisions. This study found that former job-task experience makes no difference. This is conflicting with literature saying that that qualifying information is important in hiring situations because it emphasizes a person’s agency and competence (Bosak & Szesny, 2011). Both agency and communality seem important factors for career advancement decisions. A possible explanation for this finding is that due to the development of transformational leadership styles, communal traits and behaviors have become important managerial and leadership characteristics (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Koenig, Mitchell, Eagly, & Ristikari, 2011). For example, Hentschel, Braun, Peus, and Frey (2018) found that transformational leadership, in general, resulted in higher
promotability due to higher perceptions of the communality of leaders. This indicates that communal characteristics appear to be important in the career advancement process.
Furthermore, the view of some leader roles may already be changing towards less centralized and top-down leadership behavior, by which participatory and open communication strategies are developed that also require communality traits (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Therefore, it is possible that both communal and agentic traits are currently seen as important factors on which people base their promotion decisions. Consequently, the traditional view of and tasks necessary for managerial jobs are subject to change.
Moving on, the findings regarding perceived management competence are somewhat contradictory to previous research. The expectation that former job-task experience leads to higher chances on career advancement via management competence was not fulfilled. This is in contrast with literature stating that clear information about one’s agentic performance and
21
experience is proof of one’s competence (Koch et al., 2015; Bosak & Szesny, 2011; Isaac, Lee & Carnes, 2009) and the assumption that women with communal traits will be evaluated as less competent (Biernat, 2009). However, management competence did have a direct effect on career advancement. A possible explanation for these findings is that the management competence scale was divided by a people-oriented component and an achievement-oriented component. Both components were combined into one scale which may be the reason that both task experiences were influential for management competence ratings. When agentic competence is identified, it results in higher career advancement opportunities which is similar to the main findings. However, when communal competence is identified, it did not make a difference for career advancement opportunities. Yet, it is not clear why there was no effect of former job-task experience on career advancement through management competence in general.
Regarding social dominance orientation, no differences were found between people high and low in SDO. These findings are in contrast with Pratto et al. (1994), stating that people high in social dominance orientation tend to hold on to their stereotypes to maintain social hierarchies. In this study, people high in social dominance orientation did not maintain social hierarchies and evaluated men and women equally. However, people low in SDO indeed perceived men and women to be equally promotable which is congruent with Pratto et al. (1994). A possible explanation for these findings is that the social dominance orientation theory talks generally about groups and does not specifically focus on gender or work situations (Pratto et al., 1994). In this research, the group that participants had in mind when answering the SDO questions was not validated. Therefore, it is possible that people high in SDO did not focus on gender but focused more on former job-task experience which could have resulted in minor differences between the groups.
Social dominance orientation as a construct might also be less connected with other sexism measures. This is contradictory to Pratto et al. (1994) who state that the correlation between SDO and ideologies concerning group prejudice against other nations, ethnic groups and sexes was very strong. Social dominance orientation is mainly applied in research on other topics like political beliefs, authoritarianism and culture in general (e.g. Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Pratto et al., 2000). However, little to no research has examined the effect of SDO on gender preferences in leadership roles, so this might be addressed in future research. Furthermore, more than half of the sample had relatively high social dominant beliefs. In a country like the Netherlands with low power hierarchies (e.g. Hofstede, 1984) it is very interesting that so many people hold strong social dominant beliefs.
22
Additionally, evaluators did not have a frame of reference (e.g. another target gender) during the evaluation, which also could have resulted in little differences between people high and low in SDO. If people could choose between multiple employees and genders, SDO might play a more present and visible role. This expectation is in line with research showing that decision makers exhibit favoritism toward candidates that belong to the same social group (Pager & Shepherd, 2008; Whitley & Kite, 2009). Thus, when there are multiple candidates to choose from, SDO might become more effective.
Finally, I would like to comment on the findings of the exploratory analysis. Interestingly, the findings of the exploratory analysis show that former job-task experience influences communal management competence, but only for people high in social dominance orientation. This finding suggests that people high in SDO evaluate employees with
communal task experience as more competent then those with agentic task experience, when looking at communal management competence. A possible explanation for this finding is that people high in SDO do hold on to social hierarchy by favoring social practices that maintain inequality among groups (Pratto et al., 1994). They only see a fit between communal task experience and communal management competence. This fit is explained by several researchers such as Heilman et al. (2004), Koch et al. (2015), and Pinto et al. (2017). They state that gender stereotypical judgments could be eliminated in the presence of unambiguous information when information clearly indicates high competence. Apparently, communal job-task experience indicates high communal competence for people high in SDO. This is
contradictory to the main findings of this study, but it is an important comment that needs to be made. A possible explanation for this finding is that the manipulation of agentic task experience was not strong enough. Hereby, there was no direct effect of former job-task experience on agentic management competence.
Practical implications
Looking at the practical insights of this study, the findings of this study could be important for managers who engage in career advancement and especially for the HR
department. It is of importance that people working in the HR sector are aware of the fact that gender biases could influence the career advancement process. Furthermore, they have to be aware of the changing view on leadership and prepare future leaders to develop more collaborative and transformational leadership styles. Organizations should engage in the development of communal traits among future leaders because these traits are important for the development of transformational leaders and are associated with leadership success (Eagly
23
& Karau, 2002; Judge & Piccolo). To increase representation and acceptance of women in top management, it is recommended to reduce prejudice about gender. To achieve this goal, it is recommended to train decision makers to evaluate men and women on the basis of their task experience and competence. Therefore, it would be useful for organizations to base promotion decisions on former job-task experience and integrate this type of information criteria in their career advancement procedure. According to Heilman (2012), specific criteria for career advancement might reduce prejudices.
Limitations and future research
A number of limitations could have limited the generalizability of the findings. The main limitation of this study was that students rather than managers or other HR employees were used. Additionally, the relation between the independent variables and the dependent variables could have been influenced by other factors such as the participant’s gender, age, and external environmental circumstances more easily. This research did not use control variables at all. In future studies, this could be addressed by using covariates in the analytical part of the research such as work-experience, leadership experience and the age and gender of the evaluator. To address the generalizability of the findings, it might be interesting to see how managers, recruiters and HR professionals deal with agentic and communal behavior in real life. They are experienced in making promotion decisions and might be more aware of potential biases in the career advancement process. Therefore, a real-life field experiment within organizations is also recommended.
Second, the content validity of this study can be questioned. The experiment contained a lot of reading material. It is possible that participants forgot what they read regarding former job-task experience after reading the internal employee form and the evaluation of the co-worker. This could be an explanation for the minor differences between the conditions. Likewise, participants had to fill in a lot of questions after the manipulation. It is possible that they were too rushed while filling in the questionnaire or that they did not have the focus anymore at the end of the questionnaire. Furthermore, some participants made use of the feedback pace in the questionnaire to explain what other information they based their promotion decisions on. People indicated that they often based their decisions on the co-worker’s feedback form which was not the manipulation but only a distractor. 13 % of all participants indicated that they mainly based their decision on the information of the co-worker. In future studies, this could be addressed by shortening the questionnaire and only ask people what is necessary for the study. To keep people’s attention, participants should only be
24
exposed to the internal form with competencies and former job-task experience as the
experimental manipulation. It is also recommended to let participants look at the internal form as many times as they want to make a deliberate choice.
Third, the SDO measure did not focus specifically on gender. In future research, it might be interesting to test SDO independently for male and female participants. In this study, the sample size was not big enough to do so. It would also be interesting to categorize
participants by testing other sexism beliefs before participation in the study.
Furthermore, all conditions contained uneven numbers of participants. This was due to people not finishing the survey which could have influenced the results in general. Whether the results depend on the use of a scenario-based experimental manipulation or some other factors of the study, the results showed no evidence of gender bias and stereotype effects.
In future studies, it will be important to examine under which circumstances former job-task experience will have an effect on career advancement decisions. Future research should examine various means by which employees might present themselves as a mix of communality and agency and whether doing so reduces the tendency for evaluators to engage in shifting career advancement criteria. An employee with a mix of communality and agency traits might be more fitting to higher management positions due to changing leadership perceptions (Eagly & Carli, 2003). Therefore, the experimental condition should contain target genders possessing both agency and communality traits. It is also recommended to vary in factors by showing people more than one target in the career advancement process.
Conclusions
Overall, this study examined what the effect of former job-task experience on career advancement decisions is. This study broadened the field of research on sex segregation in an organizational context. This study showed that it is allowed to diverge from the dominant theoretical perspective which suggests that evaluators prefer employees with agentic job-task experience and proposed a more nuanced view of gender bias in the career advancement process.
References
Adams, R. B. (2016). Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow? The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 371-386. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.11.001
25
Alexandra, V. (2018). Predicting CQ development in the context of experiential cross-cultural training: The role of social dominance orientation and the propensity to change stereotypes. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 62-78.
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is “women's” work valued as highly as “men's”?. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38(6), 1416-1441.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). Academic Press.
Biernat, M. (2009). Stereotypes and shifting standards. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping,
and discrimination, 137-152.
Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military context. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 301–317.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2000). Gender differences in pay (No. w7732). National bureau of economic research.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). Changes in the labor supply behavior of married women: 1980–2000. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(3), 393-438.
Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex roles, 65(3-4), 234-242.
Brescoll, V. L., Dawson, E., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1640-1642. doi: 10.1177/0956797610384744
Carlsson, R., Agerström, J., Björklund, F., Carlsson, M., & Rooth, D. O. (2014). Testing for Backlash in Hiring. Journal of Personnel Psychology
Catalyst (2016). Statistical overview of women in the workforce. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workforce CBS/SCP (2016). Emancipatiemonitor 2016. Retrieved from
ttps://www.scp.nl/Publicaties/Alle_publicaties/Publicaties_2016/Emancipatiemonitor_ 2016
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 25(4), 413-423.
26
Chan, C. K., & Anteby, M. (2016). Task segregation as a mechanism for within-job inequality: Women and men of the Transportation Security
Administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 184-216. Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management
competence. International journal of project management, 23(1), 7-16.
Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 31, 73-98.
De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E., & Bechtoldt, M. N. (2010). Gender differences in job challenge: A matter of task allocation. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(4), 433-453. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men
of the past, present, and future. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(10), 1171-1188.
Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32(7), 1199-1213.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 807-834.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The
developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: Have times
changed?. American Psychological Association.
Fernandez, R. M., & Friedrich, C. (2011). Gender sorting at the application
interface. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(4), 591-609. Fernandez, R. M., & Mors, M. L. (2008). Competing for jobs: Labor queues and gender
sorting in the hiring process. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1061-1080.
Fernandez, R. M., & Sosa, M. L. (2005). Gendering the job: Networks and recruitment at a call center. American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), 859-904.
Gerdes, E. P., & Garber, D. M. (1983). Sex bias in hiring: Effects of job demands and applicant competence. Sex Roles, 9(3), 307-319.
27
Glick, P., Wilk, K., and Perreault, M. (1995). Images of occupations: components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles 32, 565–582. doi:
10.1007/BF01544212
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent
women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 657-674. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in organizational
Behavior, 32, 113-135.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in
organizational behavior.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of applied
psychology, 89(3), 416.
Hentschel, T., Braun, S., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2018). The communality-bonus effect for male transformational leaders–leadership style, gender, and promotability. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(1), 112-125.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific journal
of management, 1(2), 81-99.
Isaac, C., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: a systematic review. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American
Medical Colleges, 84(10), 1440.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910. King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012).
Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835-1866.
28
Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128.
Koenig, A.M., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender prejudice: On the risks of occupying
incongruent roles. Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom, 63-81.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological
bulletin, 137(4), 616.
Landy, F. (2008). Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: Strange and stranger. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 379–392.
doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00071.x
Megargee, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 53(5), 377.
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol, 34, 181-209. Paloniemi, S. (2006). Experience, competence and workplace learning. Journal of workplace
learning, 18(7/8), 439-450.
Pinto, J. K., Patanakul, P., & Pinto, M. B. (2017). “The aura of capability”: Gender bias in selection for a project manager job. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(3), 420-431.
Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across
cultures. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 31(3), 369-409.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European review of social
psychology, 17(1), 271-320.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender
29
Rice, L., & Barth, J. M. (2016). Hiring decisions: The effect of evaluator gender and gender stereotype characteristics on the evaluation of job applicants. Gender Issues, 33(1), 1-21.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 637-655.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle
managers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(5), 1004.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 675-688.
Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of
productivity and Performance management, 55(7), 569-593.
Stanley, I., Al-Shehri, A., & Thomas, P. A. U. L. (1993). Continuing education for general practice. 1. Experience, competence and the media of self-directed learning for established general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract, 43(370), 210-214.
Stein, L. A., Aragon, D., Moreno, D., & Goodman, J. (2014, October). Evidence for the persistent effects of an intervention to mitigate gender-stereotypical task allocation within student engineering teams. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2014
IEEE (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 409. Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work
experience. Personnel psychology, 51(2), 321-355.
Whitley Jr, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (2016). Psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Routledge.
30
Appendix I – Questionnaire
You be the supervisor! - Promotion
decisions in organizational settings
Start of Block: Introduction
You be the supervisor! – Promotion decisions in organizational settings Thank you for participating in this study on promotion decisions in organizations!
• The study will take about 10 - 15 minutes
• Your details remain anonymous and your personal details are not provided to third parties
• You can cancel your participation at any time without giving a reason • For other questions you can contact jeanne.viergever@student.uva.nl
Do you agree to participate in this study?
o
Yes (1)OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
As you know, most organizations have formal promotion procedures to assist decision makers in identifying the most promising talents. Unfortunately, due to limited time and organizational resources, it is often not possible for all employees to be thoroughly reviewed, and decision makers must rely on their gut reactions to assist them in narrowing the field. Therefore, it is important to know how decision makers screen employees for potential promotions, and to identify any rules of thumb that are commonly used to eliminate people from the pool or keep them in the running for a promotion.
In this study, we are interested in the screening of employees for promotions in a large company. Sometimes preliminary screening for promotion decisions are made by HR professionals without direct contact with the employees being considered, and sometimes the information they have about these individuals is very minimal. We are interested in how these decision makers form impressions and make their screening decisions. Our aim is to identify the types of information that yields the most consistent impressions and are most helpful in facilitating effective screening for promotion decisions.
31
WHAT YOU WILL BE DOING
You will be asked to review an employee who has been randomly selected from a larger set of employees being considered for a promotion. First you will see the company’s internal employee form followed by an evaluation of the employee's performance. You will then be asked to give your reactions on a brief questionnaire, indicating whether you think the employee should be further considered for a promotion.
We know that you will have very limited information to go on – that is the point of our study. But please answer every question. It is your spontaneous impression that is of interest to us.
32
Start of Block: Condition 1: Agentic Woman Please read the employee information carefully.
33
What follows is the questionnaire.
This is your last chance to go back to the employee information. Feel free to do so.
When you feel prepared to answer the questionnaire, please continue on to the next page.
34
Start of Block: Condition 2: Communal Woman Please read the employee information carefully.
35
What follows is the questionnaire.
This is your last chance to go back to the employee information. Feel free to do so.
When you feel prepared to answer the questionnaire, please continue on to the next page.
36
Start of Block: Condition 3: Agentic Man Please read the employee information carefully.
37
What follows is the questionnaire.
This is your last chance to go back to the employee information. Feel free to do so.
When you feel prepared to answer the questionnaire, please continue on to the next page.
38
Start of Block: Condition 4: Communal Man Please read the employee information carefully.
39
What follows is the questionnaire.
This is your last chance to go back to the employee information. Feel free to do so.
When you feel prepared to make a decision, please continue on to the next page.
