WHERE IS THY STING?:
FACTORS REDUCING THE QUEEN BEE SYNDROME
DELINAH HALVORSON – MOLEN Student number: 0899054
University of Groningen
MSc HRM, Faculty of Economics and Business Gerbrand Bakkerstraat 98A
9713 HN Groningen Phone: 050-3114425
E-mail: d.molen@student.rug.nl First supervisor: dr. F.A. Rink
VOORWOORD
Deze afstudeerscriptie is geschreven in het kader van de opleiding MSc Human Resource Management. Zoals de ondertitel al aangeeft, heb ik onderzoek gedaan naar factoren die het zogeheten Queen Bee Syndroom verminderen: onbereidwillig gedrag van vrouwen dat negatieve gevolgen heeft voor de doorgroei van andere vrouwen in de organisatie. De boventitel vraagt wellicht om wat meer uitleg. “Where is thy sting?” is een deel van een citaat uit Corinthiërs 15:55 uit de Engelstalige King James Bible: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”. Ik heb voor dit citaat gekozen omdat Queen Bee gedrag vergeleken kan worden met het gedrag van bijen. Net als bijen, ‘steken’ (‘sting’ in het Engels) Queen Bee vrouwen anderen als ze zich bedreigt voelen door hen. Queen Bee vrouwen voelen zich met name bedreigd door andere vrouwen, vandaar dat zij juist deze vrouwen ‘steken’, dat wil zeggen, tegenwerken. Ook is er een meer figuurlijke reden voor mijn keuze van dit citaat. In de Bijbel wordt dit citaat gebruikt om aan te geven dat als je in God gelooft, je niet bang hoeft te zijn voor de dood. Als je gelooft ga je immers naar de hemel en de dood heeft op die manier geen macht over je. Dit is ook iets wat ik geprobeerd heb te bewerkstelligen met mijn scriptie: door het benoemen van factoren die het Queen Bee Syndroom verminderen, wordt de macht die Queen Bee vrouwen hebben over andere vrouwen in de organisatie, gereduceerd.
Deze scriptie had niet tot stand kunnen komen zonder de hulp van verschillende mensen. Ik maak hier dan ook graag van de gelegenheid gebruik hen te bedanken, te beginnen met een woord van dank voor de respondenten die de moeite hebben genomen om de vragenlijst in te vullen. Ook wil ik mijn begeleiders Floor Rink en Eric Molleman bedanken voor de goede begeleiding, adviezen en feedback. Verder bedank ik Laura de Jong omdat ze mij de kans heeft geboden mijn vragenlijst in het UMCG af te nemen en dank ik Mariëlla van Sebille voor haar begeleiding en de plezierige samenwerking. Een woord van dank ook voor de bijdragen van Marco Hofstra en Marjon Leever, en voor Ben Booij en Hans Rozema voor de ondersteuning bij het digitaliseren van de vragenlijst.
Ten slotte wil ik een aantal mensen in mijn privé-omgeving bedanken. Allereerst bedank ik natuurlijk mijn ouders voor hun morele steun, hun oprechte interesse en hun vertrouwen in mijn kunnen. Verder bedank ik mijn vriendinnen, zowel voor hun steun, als voor de soms zo broodnodige gezelligheid. And last, but most certainly not least, I would like to thank my husband, Gary. Where would I have been without you as my sounding board, my ‘walking dictionary’, my most loyal supporter? A study room full of daffodils for your support, faith, and love!
Delinah Halvorson-Molen
WHERE IS THY STING?:
FACTORS REDUCING THE QUEEN BEE SYNDROME
ABSTRACT
In this field study I investigated variables that decrease the Queen Bee Syndrome— (sub)conscious behaviours of women that have negative consequences for the career advancement of other women—through the use of two separate research questions. Data was collected in two large non-profit organisations in the northern Netherlands (N = 174 female employees). The results support the hypotheses that 1) gender identification among women is crucial for the success of organisational measures aimed at reducing same-sex discrimination, and 2) influential women will display significantly less Queen Bee related behaviour, provided they possess a high level of self-esteem or self-efficacy. Based on these results, practical implications for organisations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: Queen Bee Syndrome, gender identification, social support, work-family balance,
INTRODUCTION
According to the Emancipatiemonitor 2006, published by the Dutch Central Bureau
for Statistics (CBS), the proportion of women in higher management positions still lags
behind the total number of women participating in the Dutch work force. In 2005 for example, for every 100 women in scientific professions or higher functions, only 3 occupied a top position, compared to 8 out of 100 for men. This skewed ratio of women to men at higher management levels is often explained by several factors obstructing women’s career prospects (CBS, 2006). One relatively unexamined obstructing factor is the so-called Queen Bee
Syndrome, defined as (sub)conscious behaviours of women that have negative consequences
for the advancement of other women in the organisation (Ellemers, Van Den Heuvel, De Gilder, Maass, & Bonvini, 2004). In general, female discrimination towards other women is less recognised than male discrimination towards women, which makes it more difficult for those women who suffer from this type of same-sex discrimination to develop effective coping mechanisms and to respond appropriately (Baron, Burgess, & Kao, 1991; Barreto & Ellemers, 2005). As Cooper states; “women therefore continue to be an important obstacle in keeping other women from being successful in leadership positions” (Cooper, 1997: 493).
In this thesis I will investigate variables that decrease Queen Bee behaviour. This is highly relevant because, even though earlier research has proven the existence of the Queen Bee Syndrome, so far little research has been done into factors that reduce this syndrome. Gaining a better understanding of the factors that make women in higher positions less biased towards other women is essential for the development of organisational strategies to overcome same-sex discrimination, and thus to further the advancement of women in their careers (Ellemers et al., 2004).
discrimination among female workers are: a) offering social support to women in their careers (in terms of networking and mentoring), and b) facilitating an effective balance for women between work and family life (see figure 1).
The second research question I have aimed to answer is whether the amount of influence women have obtained within organisations is indeed a central predictor of the Queen Bee Syndrome as previous research states (Ellemers, et al., 2004; Mavin, 2006). I argue that this is not necessarily the case: influential women can in fact display significantly less Queen Bee related behaviour, provided they have a high level of esteem or self-efficacy (see figure 2).
Before presenting the theoretical framework for each model, I will first provide a general overview of research done on women’s underrepresentation in higher and scientific positions and elaborate on the existence of the Queen Bee Syndrome.
The Underrepresentation of Women
for their group. That is, the conception of leadership positions is mostly based on male characteristics, and it is generally assumed that women are less likely to possess these attributes (Brenner et al., 1989). This causes a lack of fit between the behaviour of females in top management positions and the behaviour that is typically expected from women (Fiske, 1989).
However, one other important and rather disturbing factor that might explain the underrepresentation of women in higher professions is the perception that women themselves hold of other women. According to Rose and Stone (1978), women who have finally obtained a top position in their career—accompanied with a higher level of influence—tend to appraise other women more negatively, respond in a more biased manner towards them in professional situations, and are less likely to promote them than men are (Brown & Geis, 1984; Ibarra, 1992; Matteson, 1976). As indicated at the start of my thesis, these behaviours could be an indication of the presence of the Queen Bee Syndrome.
The Queen Bee Syndrome
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
While various authors have described the existence and the characteristics of the Queen Bee Syndrome, research is lacking into factors which might weaken its existence. In this study I hope to help fill this knowledge gap through investigating two separate research models.
Theory and Hypotheses Model 1
With model 1 I will consider the first research question I aim to answer in this thesis. This question relates to the crucial role of gender identification as a factor in reducing Queen Bee behaviour, and in increasing the effectiveness of organisational measures used to overcome same-sex discrimination among female workers. I will examine three hypotheses in treating this model, a discussion of which follows here below.
Identification with gender. Identification with one’s own gender may facilitate easier
communication and it promotes relationships of trust and reciprocity (Lincoln & Miller, 1979; McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987) which, in turn, have the potential to offer women an important source of instrumental and emotional support (Ibarra, 1992). In addition, when women identify themselves with other women they are more likely to perceive women peers as colleagues instead of competitors, more likely to see senior women as role models with legitimate influence, and they are more likely to find support in the relationships they have with other women (Ely, 1994). Since gender identification involves reducing the threat women feel from other women and overcoming feelings of isolation, it would seem to be an important factor in reducing Queen Bee behaviour.
Logically then, it would seem crucial for women who want to advance into higher positions to avoid, at least to some degree, stereotypically “feminine” behaviours on the one hand, while displaying more “masculine” behaviour on the other (Cooper, 1997). Indeed, in a study done by Ellemers (1993) among professors at various Dutch universities, it was shown that female professors do describe themselves as being more masculine (and less feminine) than their male colleagues describe them.
One consequence of women believing that they have to change to fit in better with the male-dominated organisational culture (the majority) so as to advance in their careers, is that they come to identify themselves with men and start to disidentify themselves from other women, or their actual in-group, leading them to believe that they are no longer part of the minority (Coates, 1998; Mavin, 2006). This disidentification with one’s own gender then contributes to these women showing more Queen Bee behaviour towards other women since other women become less important for them for career progression (Ellemers, 1993).
On the other hand there is also research that suggests that when women become aware of the fact that they are in the minority, they can in fact also start to identify more with their own gender, and thus become motivated to take collective action towards mobility (Ellemers, Van Knippenberg, De Vries, & Wilke, 1993). Collective mobility refers to actions focused on improving the conditions of the entire group as compared to individual mobility, which refers to actions focused on improving one’s personal conditions (Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). Indeed, rather than individualised strategies, Mavin and Bryans (2002) argue that women and organisations benefit more from collective action through friendship and cooperation between women so that connectedness and reflexivity are facilitated and so that women become more motivated to help and support each other in their careers. In short, there is a large body of literature suggesting that women in isolated positions will identify even more with their own gender, which will result in less same-sex discrimination (Billig & Tajfel, 1973).
Women, therefore, seem to have a choice in how they handle their minority membership within the organisation. I propose that women who remain identified with their female group members will demonstrate less same-sex discrimination towards these in-group members than women who do not highly identify themselves with their own gender.
Gender identification and the effectiveness of organisational strategies. Following
my hypothesis that identification with one’s own gender is crucial to decreasing Queen Bee behaviour, I propose that it also serves as a moderator in the relationship between certain strategies organisations can use to reduce female same-sex discrimination, and the Queen Bee Syndrome. These organisational strategies are: 1) the implementation of social support systems specifically aimed at women within the organisation, and 2) the facilitation of a positive work-family balance during women’s careers.
1) Social support. One way organisations can help their employees to advance in their careers is to offer social support through ‘resources’—potential useful information or things—that can help in one’s career development (Williams, Barclay, & Schmied, 2004). Indeed, receiving social support can be seen as an organisational measure having a direct influence on reducing the Queen Bee Syndrome (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). Receiving social support can be important in various ways. According to Kram (1983), the main function of social support is the career function. That is, it aims to help people get corporate exposure and obtain promotions through challenging work assignments, coaching, and sponsorship. Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass (1998) add that social support also provides women with a sense of shared identity and security through role modeling, friendship, and counseling, which makes women feel less isolated. In principle, this should lead women to be more sympathetic to other women and more inclined to help other women advance in their careers. This as opposed to feeling threatened by, and demonstrating more same-sex discrimination against, other women (Cooper, 1997; Mavin, 2006).
organisation (Ryan & Haslam, 2007).
Another form of social support is mentoring. Mentoring is the relationship between a more senior individual and a more junior member of an organisation directed towards developmental assistance of the protégé (Fowler & O’Gorman, 2005; Higgins & Kram, 2001). It is usually based on factors such as identification and perceived similarity (Blake-Beard, 2001), and it provides important resources for career advancement such as personal and emotional guidance, learning facilitation, and protection (Fowler & O’Gorman, 2005). However, it is harder for women to access mentoring due to social identity theory related behaviours as stated above. Another difficulty for women in accessing mentoring is that it is usually meant for high potentials (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006), and since it is harder for women to gain recognition as having high potential, they are usually overlooked (Lyness & Thompson, 2000).
and childless. This finding seems to suggest that especially women are affected by the trade-off between family roles and work roles. As it is generally more problematic for them to find an optimal balance between their work and personal lives (Rothbard & Edwards, 2003), women without this optimal balance experience less quality of life (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). In addition, those who experience conflict between work life and family life are more inclined to report negative attitudes like stress and depression (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Van Steenbergen et al., 2007).
It is, therefore, useful for organisations to pay attention to facilitating a positive work-family balance, especially for women since they are the ones who seem to be most affected by a negative balance. However, research so far has focused only on the consequences of a positive or a negative work-family balance on the individual level, as discussed above. I propose that a positive work-family balance can also have important consequences on the
group level. That is, I believe it may lead to less Queen Bee behaviour, but only when women
identify themselves highly with their own gender. A high level of gender identification involves women having more understanding for other women who have either struck a different work-family balance, or who find any balance hard to attain (Gini, 2001). Women who perceive their own work-family balance as positive and, at the same time, identify themselves highly with other women, will not only be satisfied with their own work-family balance on the individual level, they will also show less same-sex discrimination on the group level towards other women making other work-family balance choices (Gini, 2001).
In sum, I propose that gender identification plays a crucial role in the relationship between organisational strategies designed to overcome same-sex discrimination and the reduction of such discrimination. Formally stated:
Hypothesis 2. Gender identification moderates the relationship between receiving social support and the Queen Bee Syndrome such that the negative relationship between social support and the Queen Bee Syndrome becomes significantly stronger when women identify themselves highly with other members of their gender.
Based on the above theoretical framework the following conceptual model will be tested:
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model 1
Theory and Hypotheses Model 2
Having defined some of the factors leading to a reduction in Queen Bee behaviour, I will now consider the second research question of this thesis. Do influential women demonstrate the Queen Bee Syndrome, showing negative behaviours towards other women?
Perceived influence in the organisation. Influence can be defined as having power or
control over others (Fiske, 1993). Influence is a typical characteristic of social relations, with leaders holding more senior positions having more influence than their subordinates (Rodríguez-Bailón, Moya, & Yzerbyt, 2000). According to Fiske (1993) the organisational outcomes influential people want to achieve are less dependent on people with less influence in the organisation. This may lead influential people to stereotype more (Ebenbach & Keltner, 1998; Fiske 1993), to make quick judgments (Fiske, 1993), and to serve their own goals instead of collective goals or those of other individuals (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2003). Perceiving one’s self as having influence in the organisation reduces one’s consideration of other perspectives because influential people are more inclined to see everything from their own perspective (Galinsky et al., 2003).
For these reasons, the Queen Bee Syndrome is expected to manifest itself most commonly in women who hold more senior positions within the organisation (Ellemers et al., 2004; Mavin, 2006). This assumption is reinforced by the fact that it is relatively difficult to get an influential position in an organisation and competition is fierce (Kluytmans, 2001). Women in influential positions may therefore feel threatened by other females competing for their position, influence, and status, leading them to demonstrate Queen Bee behaviour in
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
- Social support
- Positive work-family balance
-/-
DEPENDENT VARIABLEQueen Bee Syndrome
MODERATOR
High identification with gender
order to undermine their competitors’ success (Cooper, 1997; Mavin, 2006).
And yet, other research has found that having influence does not per se lead to stereotyping and harsher evaluations of others. For example, Overbeck & Park (2006) propose that, contrary to Fiske’s belief, relationships between influential and less influential people are indeed reciprocal. They claim that in most organisations influential people do pay attention to certain others with less influence, as long as these others can help in the attainment of organisational goals. Paying attention to others can also gain them certain benefits that might help them in the attainment of their own personal goals, or in maintaining or increasing their personal influence (Overbeck & Park, 2001). Further, Cowan, Neighbors, DeLaMoreaux, and Behnke (1998) found that women with influence are not hostile towards other women when they feel confident about themselves and their work performance. When this is the case, these women do not feel threatened by other women competing for their jobs (Fein & Spencer, 1997), and show less Queen Bee behaviour (Cooper, 1997; Mavin, 2006).
Thus, it can be said that research so far into the effect of one’s level of influence in the organisation and same-sex discrimination has produced many qualifications and is at times contradictory. It seems that some individuals will react differently than others to having influence in an organisation.
Self-esteem and self-efficacy. Several studies have shown that (perceptions of)
women’s personalities can either assist or disrupt their careers (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). In this study I shall examine two personality traits that potentially weaken or strengthen the relationship between perceived influence in the organisation and Queen Bee behaviour: self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy can be defined as “judgments of a person’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Murphy & Ensher, 1999: 1375). According to leadership research, a leader’s level of self-efficacy within a leader-subordinate relationship can influence a leader’s personal security and his or her use of appropriate influencing techniques (Bass, 1990). Research of Sashkin (1988) shows that confident leaders are more likely to increase subordinates’ confidence in accomplishing a task through encouraging them and through setting goals with them. Also, leaders with high levels of self-efficacy give higher performance ratings than leaders with low self-efficacy levels (Murphy & Ensher, 1999).
Based on these theoretical notions, I therefore make the following prediction:
Hypothesis 4a. Self-esteem moderates the relationship between perceived influence in the organisation and the Queen Bee Syndrome such that influential women with high self-esteem are less likely to demonstrate Queen Bee Syndrome related behaviour.
Hypothesis 4b. Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between perceived influence in the organisation and the Queen Bee Syndrome such that influential women with high self-efficacy are less likely to demonstrate Queen Bee Syndrome related behaviour.
Thus, the second conceptual model I aim to test is: FIGURE 2 Conceptual Model 2
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Influence in the organisation
-/-
DEPENDENT VARIABLEQueen Bee Syndrome
MODERATORS
METHODS Participants
The sample of this study consisted of 239 female employees of a large hospital in the north of the Netherlands of whom 115 responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 48%), and of 116 female employees of a Dutch university of whom 59 responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 51%).
Hospital employees. The participants in this study were women working in functions
directly related to the hospital’s primary processes of patient care, research and/ or teaching, distributed as follows: medical specialists (52.6%), researchers (10.5%), assistant professors (9.6%), associate professors and professors (9.6% and 8.8% respectively), and heads of departments (4.4%). 4.4% of the participants held other positions. The mean age was 42.
In the accompanying e-mail (see appendix 1), it was explained that the study was being executed as part of a master’s thesis and that the researcher was interested in the career development of women. By clicking on a hyperlink, respondents were automatically referred to a digital web-based questionnaire. Two weeks after the original mailing, a reminder was sent to all women in the sample by e-mail (see appendix 1).
Faculty members. The participants were female faculty members working at various
faculties. 23.7% of the respondents held a position of full professor, 16.9% a position of associate professor, 55.9% that of assistant professor, and 3.5% held other positions. The mean age was 45.
In the accompanying letter (see appendix 1), participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire within two weeks, and return it with the enclosed return envelop. Two and a half weeks after the original mailing, a reminder was sent to all women in the sample by e-mail (see appendix 1).
Questionnaire
Measures Model 1
Identification with gender. The two propositions used for this scale (Cronbach’s α =
.70) were adapted from Cameron (2004).
Social support. This construct was measured using a scale composed of 10
propositions (Cronbach’s α = .75) concerning networking and mentoring. First, two statements were proposed to determine whether the respondents had or had not had mentoring, and whether they had or had not participated in networking at some time in their careers. The remaining 8 statements were offered to gauge the attitude of the respondents towards three specific functions of social support (Ryan, 2008), namely the career function (e.g. “A network should advise and guide its members with regard to their career options”), the identity function (e.g. “Mentoring should provide women with a sense of belonging”), and the social function (e.g. “A network should be about friendship and support”).
Balance work-life – family-life. The propositions regarding the balance between
work-life and family-life were based on a study done by Van Steenbergen et al. (2007). The questionnaire in this study consists of 48 work-family conflict and facilitation items grouped in four categories: time-based facilitation, energy-based facilitation, behavioural facilitation, and psychological facilitation. For this study four facilitation items of each category (e.g. “The energy I build up in a day’s work enables me to make a better contribution at home”) were selected to form a scale (Cronbach’s α = .68).
Measures Model 2
Influence. For this construct, four questions were used to measure how respondents
perceive their own level of influence in their respective organisations (Stoker, 2008; Cronbach’s α = .79). Example: “How would you describe your own level of influence within the organisation” (possible answers: none/ low/ medium/ high/ very high).
Self-esteem. In accordance with a study by Rosenberg, Schooler, and Schoenbach
(1989), self-esteem was measured using six of the ten items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale consists of items relating to feelings of self-worth, self-acceptance, and self-respect (Christopher & Wojda, 2008; Rosenberg et al., 1989) and consists of items such as “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others” and “At times I think I am no good at all”. The so-constructed scale has a Cronbach’s α of .70.
in 2002 by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (Cronbach’s α = .76) and consists of five statements (e.g. “If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution”).
Common Measures Model 1 and Model 2
General information. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of 13 questions
regarding demographic information (age, marital status, parenthood), general work information (function in the organisation, hours worked per week) and individual performance.
Queen Bee Syndrome. Each proposition for this construct (Cronbach’s α = .90)
treated how the participants view other women and their work (e.g. “The typical female colleague would like to get ahead at work” and “Her career plays a central role in her life”), and is based on a study done by Ellemers et al. (2004).
RESULTS Results Model 1
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables of conceptual model 1.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables of Conceptual Model 1
Variables N Mean s.d. 1 2 3
1. Identification with gender 163 4.66 1.13
2. Social support 164 4.41 0.74 .13
3. Work-family balance 171 4.29 0.10 .02 .35**
4. Queen Bee Syndrome 160 4.09 0.89 -.17* -.21* -.04
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
TABLE 2
Regression Estimates of the Effects of “Identification with Gender”, “Social Support”, and “Work-Family Balance” on “Queen Bee Syndrome” (Conceptual Model 1)
Variables b s.e. b β R2 step 1 ∆R2 step 2 Sig.
Main effects: 1. Identification with gender -0.14 0.06 -.17 .03 .03
2. Social support -0.24 0.09 -.21 .04 .01
3. Work-family balance -0.04 0.07 -.04 .00 .59
Interactions: 4. Social support x
Identification with gender -0.16 0.07 -.19 .09 .03 .02 5. Work-family balance x
Identification with gender -0.14 0.06 -.19 .03 .04 .02
Hypothesis 1 predicted that women who identify themselves highly with other women, demonstrate less Queen Bee behaviour. I performed a simple lineair regression with the construct “Queen Bee Syndrome” as the dependent variable and the construct “Identification with gender” as the independent variable. As expected, the regression proved significant , p = .03.
FIGURE 3
“Queen Bee Syndrome”:
Interaction between “Social Support” and “Identification with Gender”
3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 low high Social Support Q ueen B ee S yn dr o Identification with gender high Identification with gender low
For hypothesis 3 I used “Work-family balance” and “Identification with gender” as the independent variables in step 1 of the regression, adding the standardised interaction of these two scales as the independent variable is step 2. This regression also proved significant (p = .02). After plotting the interaction effect (see figure 4) I performed an additional t-test which indicated that the simple slope for women who identify highly with their own gender differed significantly from zero (b = -0.17, s.e. = 0.10, p < .025). This was not the case for women who do not identify with their own gender (b = 0.12, s.e. = 0.10, p < .10). These results support hypothesis 3.
Queen Bee Syndrome
FIGURE 4
“Queen Bee Syndrome”:
Interaction between “Work-Family Balance” and “Identification with Gender”
3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 low high Work-family balance Q ue en B ee Sy ndr o Identification with gender high Identification with gender low
To conclude, the results confirm my hypothesis that gender identification among women reduces Queen Bee behaviour. In addition, gender identification significantly reinforces the pre-existing effect of social support on the reduction of same-sex discrimination, and it makes the facilitation of a positive work-family balance an effective organisational strategy for reducing Queen Bee behaviour.
Results Model 2
Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables of conceptual model 2.
Queen Bee Syndrome
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables of Conceptual Model 2
Variables N Mean s.d. 1 2 3
1. Influence 169 3.05 0.64
2. Self-esteem 152 5.64 0.75 .24**
3. Self-efficacy 154 5.07 0.81 .45** .47**
4. Queen Bee Syndrome 160 4.09 0.89 -.04 -.01 -.08
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 4 presents the results of both the simple and multiple regressions of conceptual model 2. An alpha level of .05 was used for all regressions.
TABLE 4
Regression Estimates of the Effects of “Influence”, “Self-esteem”, and “Self-efficacy” on “Queen Bee Syndrome” (Conceptual Model 2)
Variables b s.e. b β R2 step 1 ∆R2 step 2 Sig.
Main effects: 1. Influence -0.01 0.11 -.04 .00 .59
2. Self-esteem -0.01 0.10 -.01 .00 .95
3. Self-efficacy -0.08 0.09 -.08 .01 .36
Interactions: 4. Influence x Self-esteem -0.16 0.08 -.17 .00 .03 .05 5. Influence x Self-efficacy -0.17 -0.08 -.20 .01 .04 .03
FIGURE 5
“Queen Bee Syndrome”:
Interaction between “Influence” and “Self-esteem”
3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 low high Influence Q ue en B ee S ynd ro Self-esteem high Self-esteem low
For hypothesis 4b I used “Influence” and “Self-efficacy” as the independent variables in step 1 of the regression, adding the standardised interaction of these two scales as the independent variable in step 2. This regression proved significant, p = .03. After plotting the interaction effect (see figure 6) I performed an additional t-test which indicated that the simple slope for women with high self-efficacy differed significantly from zero (b = -0.26, s.e. = 0.14, p < .025). This was not the case for women with low self-efficacy (b = 0.08, s.e. = 0.16, p < .10). These results support hypothesis 4b.
Queen Bee Syndrome
FIGURE 6
“Queen Bee Syndrome”:
Interaction between “Influence” and “Self-efficacy”
3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 low high Influence Q ueen B ee S yn dr o Self-efficacy high Self-efficacy low
To conclude, the results confirm my hypotheses that influence is not directly related to Queen Bee behaviour. Influential women only display this type of same-sex discrimination when they have low self-esteem or low self-efficacy. When they feel good about themselves as persons, or feel good about their work performance, they show less Queen Bee behaviour, even when occupying positions wielding much influence.
DISCUSSION
The central goal of this research was to investigate variables that decrease the existence of the so-called Queen Bee Syndrome: (sub)conscious behaviours of women that have negative consequences for the advancement of other women in the organisation (Ellemers et al., 2004). Nowadays, women are still underrepresented in higher positions in organisations (CBS, 2006), and one of the factors possibly obstructing women’s career advancement is Queen Bee behaviour. Even though earlier research has proven the existence of the Queen Bee Syndrome, so far little research has been done into factors that reduce this
Queen Bee Syndrome
syndrome. However, it is important that this same-sex discrimination among women be addressed because its low profile makes it even more difficult for women who are discriminated against to cope with this bias (Baron et al., 1991; Barreto & Ellemers, 2005). Gaining a better understanding of the factors that make women in top positions less biased towards other women is therefore essential for the development of strategies to overcome same-sex discrimination in the workplace, and thus to further the advancement of women in their careers (Ellemers et al., 2004).
In this study I have examined two separate research questions. The first relates to the crucial role of gender identification in reducing the Queen Bee effect, and the second relates to whether or not the amount of influence women have obtained within organisations is a central predictor of the Queen Bee Syndrome. First, I will discuss the results of both conceptual models and consider theoretical and practical implications for each of them. I will then consider some limitations of my research, followed by a discussion of some possible directions for future research.
Discussion Model 1
For conceptual model 1, I first hypothesised that women’s identification with their own gender has a direct effect on the existence of the Queen Bee Syndrome. Consistent with my expectations, more identification of women with members of their own gender leads to a reduction in Queen Bee behaviour. This is in accordance with the findings of Ellemers et al. (1993), and Mavin and Bryans (2002) who state that women who identify themselves with other women, as opposed to identifying with men, are more likely to take collective actions and feel connected with other women, which supports my hypothesis that they are more unlikely candidates to demonstrate Queen Bee behaviour. In addition, identification with one’s own gender may facilitate easier communication and promote relationships of trust and reciprocity (Lincoln & Miller, 1979; McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987) which, in turn, have the potential to offer women an important source of instrumental and emotional support (Ibarra, 1992).
identify themselves with members of their own gender. Women who identify themselves highly with other women will bond and support each other more (Ely, 1994; Ibarra, 1992), and so social support programs specifically conceived for and by women should have an even stronger impact on reducing Queen Bee behaviour when high gender identification is present.
Finally, in accordance with hypothesis 3, my results suggest that a well-balanced work-family life leads to less Queen Bee behaviour provided that women identify themselves highly with other women. This supports the idea that, through gender identification, women will be more understanding of each other when it comes to making choices in the attainment of a satisfying family balance (Gini, 2001). Women who perceive their own work-family balance as positive and, at the same time, identify themselves highly with other women, will therefore not only be satisfied with their own work-family balance on the individual level, they will also show less same-sex discrimination on the group level towards other women who make other choices in this regard (Gini, 2001).
Theoretical and Practical Implications Model 1
As for theoretical implications, this study helps fill a gap in the current knowledge of the Queen Bee Syndrome. To my knowledge, no research has been done so far into what reduces same-sex discrimination among women. This study shows that there are indeed specific factors that can help reduce Queen Bee behaviour. It seems likely that other factors might also be of influence, such as age (Ellemers, 2004) or an unbalanced gender ratio in the organisation (Ely, 1994).
and male groups, should be in favour of the former (Williams & Giles, 1978). Organisations can aid in promoting such developments by, for example, publicizing clear evidence of women’s advancement. By giving successful women a high profile, organisations can exert a positive effect on gender identification among women (Ely, 1994).
Further, organisations should pay (more) attention to the behaviours of men. Men are the majority group in most organisations (CBS, 2006), meaning that they have the most influence, and women are, to a large degree, dependent on them for career progression (Levin & Stephan, 1998). If women’s identification with other women leads to more cohesion among women as Mavin and Bryans (2002) state, men might consider this a threat to the organisational status quo (Martin, 1986; Wright et al., 1990). This may tempt them to abuse their influence through, for example, pressuring women to become more ‘male’ to get promoted, or through giving some women preferential treatment over others (Ely, 1990). These behaviours may in turn lead women to disidentify with other women and threaten group cohesion (Coates, 1998). To overcome this behaviour, organisations should ensure that men feel less threatened by close relationships with and among women. This can be done through, for example, ‘gender awareness’ training or through ensuring that work teams are more gender-mixed.
Discussion Model 2
My results suggest that self-esteem and self-efficacy moderate the relationship between influence in the organisation and the Queen Bee Syndrome. Indeed, this study shows that women with more influence demonstrate significantly less Queen Bee Syndrome related behaviour when they have higher levels of self-esteem or self-efficacy. This is in line with Overbeck and Park’s (2006) suggestion that influence does not per se lead to same-sex discrimination: it depends on the degree to which influential people need less influential people to attain their own or organisational goals. Influence will only lead to stereotyping and a reduced consideration of other people’s perspectives when the relationships between people in the organisation are not reciprocal (Fiske, 1993; Galinsky et al., 2003).
undermine other women’s attempts to advance in the organisation (Wojciszke & Struzynska– Kujalowicz, 2007).
Theoretical and Practical Implications Model 2
An important theoretical implication of this part of my study involves the relationship between one’s level of organisational influence and the Queen Bee Syndrome. While research so far (e.g. Ellemers et al., 2004) has assumed one’s level of organisational influence to be an important independent variable for the existence of the Queen Bee Syndrome, my research calls this into question, indicating that there is no direct relationship. Perhaps the classic description of Queen Bee behaviour needs some reconsideration given this study’s indication that influential women actually show significantly less same-sex discrimination under certain conditions (e.g. high levels of self-esteem or self-efficacy). Further research into these yet to be fully-explored relationships should be undertaken.
building trust and cohesiveness, and 4) by having faith in the employee and rewarding success.
Self-efficacy is also influenced by feelings of (in)equality (O’Neill & Mone, 1998). The above-mentioned organisational measures to improve self-esteem apply here as well. Work design variables such as job enlargement and job enrichment also seem to enhance self-efficacy levels (Parker, 1998) because these work design strategies provide employees with more personal control over their work environment, and perceived personal control is a vital determinant of self-efficacy (Parker, 1998). Yet another initiative organisations can use to strengthen employees’ self-efficacy is to use successful peers as role models (Adams, 2004) or peer group interaction (Mossholder, Bedeian, & Armenakis, 1982). Such initiatives provide social support and reduce job strain (Mossholder, Bedeian, & Armenakis, 1982). Finally, Early (1994) found that self-efficacy is influenced by task training, meaning that organisations should pay close attention to inexperienced workers by offering them, for example, formalised on the job training programs.
Limitations
more difficult it is to measure the construct in a valid and reliable way (Baarda & De Goede, 2001).
Yet another limitation is that no mediations have been established, meaning that I have not been able to find any causes underlying the Queen Bee Syndrome. A final limitation worth mentioning is the inability to identify the direction of causality. Even though relations between the various variables have been made visible, I cannot specify causal connections. Also, other (combinations of) variables that might explain more of the variance of the Queen Bee Syndrome have not been explored.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study is one of the first attempts of its kind, offering some initial insights into which variables reduce the Queen Bee Syndrome. The results indicate that women’s identification with other women is crucial, not only as a factor having a direct positive effect on reducing Queen Bee behaviour, but also because it moderates the effects of organisational measures—such as providing social support and facilitating a good work-family balance—intended to reduce Queen Bee behaviour. Furthermore, my study shows that self-esteem and self-efficacy have an effect on the relationship between perceived level of influence and the Queen Bee Syndrome, such that influential women with high self-esteem or high self-efficacy show significantly less Queen Bee behaviour.
Directions for future research
Future research should aim at addressing some of this study’s limitations, for example through the use of a longitudinal research design and of more objective measures. More research is also needed to explore the strengths of my findings in other contexts, such as in more market oriented organisations, or in organisations with a more balanced gender ratio. The causality of the relationships also needs to be examined more fully.
Thompson (2000) identify various organisational barriers to women’s advancement, such as female managers’ dependence on formal organisational processes for career management, the difficulty women encounter in acquiring developmental assignments so necessary for job progression, and the fact that it is more difficult for women to pursue opportunities dependent on geographic mobility. Women who have experienced more barriers in achieving a successful career might experience feelings of isolation and resentment, leading to discrimination on their part against other women (Ellemers et al., 2004).
REFERENCES
Adams, K. 2004. Modelling success: Enhancing international postgraduate research students’ self-efficacy for research seminar presentations. Higher Education Research &
Development, 23(2): 115-130.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. 2006. The relationship between formal mentoring
program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59: 125-153.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for further research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 278–308.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1990. Assessing method variance in multitrait–multimethod
matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75:547–560.
Baarda, D. B., & De Goede, M. P. M. 2001. Basisboek methoden en technieken:
Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van onderzoek. Groningen:
Wolters-Noordhoff.
Baron, R. X., Burgess, M. L., & Kao, C.F. 1991. Detecting and labeling prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected? Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 115-123.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. 2005. The perils of political correctness: men’s and women’s responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, (68)1: 75-88.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial implications. New York: Free Press.
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. 1973. Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 3: 27-52.
Blake-Beard, S. D. 2001. Taking a hard look at formal mentoring programs: A consideration of potential challenges facing women. Journal of Management Development, 20: 331-345.
Bongiorno, R., & David, B. 2003. Gender and the categorisation of powerful others.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. 1989. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of
Management Journal, 32: 662–669.
Brown, V., & Geis, F. L. 1984. Turning lead into gold: Evaluations of men and women leaders and the alchemy of social consensus. Journal of Personal and Social
Psychology, 46: 811-824.
Buelens, M., Van Den Broeck, H., Vanderheyden, K., Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. 2006.
Organisational behaviour. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Burton, C. 1991. The promise and the price: The struggle for equal opportunity in women’s
employment. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Cameron, J. E. 2004. A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3: 239-262. Cannings, K., & Montmarquette, C. 1991. Managerial momentum: A simultaneous model of
the career progress of male and female managers. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 44: 212-228.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Emancipatiemonitor 2006, www.cbs.nl, 21/02/2008. Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. 2008. Social dominance orientation, right-wing
authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 32: 65-73.
Coates, G. 1998. Integration or separation: Women and the appliance of organizational culture. Women in Management Review, 13(3): 114-24.
Cockburn, C. 1991. In the way of women: Men’s resistance to sex equality in organisations. London: Macmillan.
Connell, R. 1987. Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Sidney: Allen & Unwin.
Cooper, V. W. 1997. Homophily or the queen bee syndrome. Female evaluation of female leadership. Small group research, 28: 483-499.
Cornelius, N., & Skinner, D. 2005. An alternative view through the glass ceiling: Using capabilities theory to reflect on the career journey of senior women. Women in
Management Review, 20(8): 595-609.
Cross, C., & Armstrong, C. 2008. Understanding the role of networks in collective learning processes: The experiences of women. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4): 600-613.
De Cremer, D., Van Knippenberg, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber. 2005. Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1): 3-12.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 1991. Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5): 685-710.
Early, P. C. 1994. Self or Group?: Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 89-117.
Ebenbach, D. H., & Keltner, D. 1998. Power, emotion, and judgmental accuracy in social conflict: Motivating the cognitive miser. Basic and Applied Social psychology, 20: 7-21.
Ellemers, N. 1993. Sociale identiteit en sekse: Het dilemma van succesvolle vrouwen.
Tijdschrift voor Vrouwenstudies, 14: 322–336.
Ellemers, N., Van den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. 2004. The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43: 315-338.
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. 1993. Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5): 766-778.
Ely, R. J. 1990. The role of men in relationships among professional women at work.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 364-368.
Ely, R. J. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203-238.
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. 1997. Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 31-44. Fiske, S. T. 1989. Court’s ruling against sex stereotyping in employment decisions will make
it easier for professors to win discrimination lawsuits. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, B3.
Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other People. The impact of power on stereotyping. American
Fowler, J. L., & O’Gorman, J. G. 2005. Mentoring functions: A contemporary view of the perceptions of mentees and mentors. British Journal of Management, 16: 51-57. Frone, M. R., Russel, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1992. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77(1): 65-78.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 2006. Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological science, 17(12): 1068-1074.
Gini, A. 2001. My job my self: Work and the creation of the modern individual. London: Routledge.
Greenhaus, J. H. & Beutell, N. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10: 76-88.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 264-288.
Ibarra, H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 422-447.
Jones, G. R. 2007. Organisational theory, design and change. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. 2005. Types of high self-esteem and prejudice: How implicit self-esteem relates to ethnic discrimination among high explicit self- esteem individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31: 693-702. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2002. Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3): 693-710.
Kanter, R. M., 1977. Men and women in the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kluytmans, F. 2001. Leerboek personeelsmanagement, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Kram, K. E. 1983. Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 608-625.
Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. 1979. Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 181-199. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. 2000. Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and
male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1: 86- 101.
Marks, S. P. 1977. Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42: 921-936.
Martin, J. 1986. The tolerance of injustice. In J. M. Olsen, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna. (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium, vol. 4: 217-242. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Matteson, M. T. 1976. Attitudes towards women as managers: Sex or role differences?
Psychological reports, 39:166.
Mavin, S. 2006. Venus envy: problematizing solidarity behaviour and queen bees.
Women in Management Review, 21: 264-276.
Mavin, S., & Bryans, P. 2002. Academic women in the UK: Mainstreaming our experiences and networking for action. Gender and Education, 14(3): 235-250.
McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. 2002. Work context and the definition of self: How
organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(5): 895-604.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 54: 365-381.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415-44.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. 1998. At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 41: 441-452.
Mossholder, K. W., Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. 1982. Group process – work
outcome relationships: A note on the moderating impact of self-esteem. Academy of
Management Journal, 25(3): 575-585.
O’Neill, B. S., & Mone, M. A. 1998. Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of
relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(5): 805-816.
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. 2001. When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4): 549-565.
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. 2006. Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of
powerholders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 99: 227–243.
Parker, S. K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(6): 835-852 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 2003. Gender, gender identity and aspirations to top management. Women in Management Review, 18(3/4): 88-96.
Rindfleish, J. 2000. Senior management women in Australia: diverse perspectives.
Women in Management Review, 4: 172-183.
Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. 2000. Why do supervisors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social psychology, 30: 651-671.
Rose, G. L., & Stone, T. J. 1978. Why good job performance may (not) be rewarded: Sex factors and career development. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 12: 197-207. Rosenberg, M. 1962. The association between self-esteem and anxiety. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 1(2): 135-152.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C. & Schoenbach, C. 1989. Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54(6): 1004-1018.
Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. 2003. Investment in work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56:699-730.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. 2007. The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management
Review, 32(2): 549-572.
Sashkin, M. 1988. The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizatinal effectiveness: 122-160.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, V. E. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57: 95–100.
Schein, V. E. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 340–344. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. 2002. The concept of self-efficacy. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik, 44: 28-53.
Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. 2001. The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 1-21.
Sidle, S. D. 2007. Pain or gain: Is there a bright side to juggling work and family roles?
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4): 80-82.
Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. 1974. The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today,
7: 55–60.
Stoker, J. 2008. Power in organisations. Working paper, University of Groningen.
Tyler, T. R. 1999. Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity based perspective.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 201-246.
Van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. 2007. How work and family life can facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3): 279-300.
Williams, P., Barclay, L., & Schmied, V. 2004. Defining social support in context: A
necessary step in improving research, intervention, and practice. Qualitative Health
Research, 14(7): 942-960.
Williams, L. J., & Brown, B. K. 1994. Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57: 185–209.
Williams, J., & Giles, H. 1978. The changing status of women in society: An intergroup
Wills, T. A. 1981. Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological
Bulletin, 90: 245-271.
Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska–Kujalowicz, A. 2007. Power influences self-esteem. Social
Cognition, 25(4): 472-494.
Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. 1990. Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality
APPENDIX 1
COVERING LETTERS AND REMINDERS UMCG covering letter
Onderwerp: Hoe kijkt u aan tegen uw carrière? Geachte dames,
''Hoe kijkt u aan tegen uw carriere?'' is een vraag die centraal staat in het afstudeeronderzoek van Delinah Halvorson-Molen, student van de Master-opleiding Human Resource Management aan de RuG. Delinah heeft eerder voor het UMCG gewerkt als projectmedewerker bij de afdeling P&O van Sector F.
In het UMCG staat het ontwikkelen van vrouwelijk talent opnieuw op de agenda. Vorig jaar deden een aantal van u mee aan ronde tafelgesprekken. Inmiddels heeft de Raad van Bestuur streefcijfers voor het aantal vrouwelijke UHDs, hoogleraren en afdelingshoofden benoemd en gaan ongeveer 15 vrouwen meedoen aan een mentorproject van de RuG.
Ik nodig u uit aan bijgaande vragenlijst mee te werken. Overigens dient deze primair als afstudeeronderzoek en is niet specifiek in opdracht van het UMCG ontwikkeld. Ik faciliteer dit afstudeeronderzoek graag gezien het belang van het onderwerp. Met de uitkomsten voor het UMCG kunnen wij ons voordeel doen.
Meer informatie over Delinah en haar onderzoek, evenals de link naar de vragenlijst, vindt u hieronder.
<<naam directeur P&O>> directeur UMC Staf P&O
Geachte mevrouw,
van vrouwen is dus een ‘hot item’. Mijn naam is Delinah Halvorson-Molen en in het kader van mijn afstudeeropdracht doe ik, in samenwerking met dr. F. Rink, onderzoek onder vrouwen in een groei- of hogere functie om te achterhalen wat hen typeert, hoe ze zijn gekomen waar ze nu zijn en wat hen motiveert in het werk.
Voor dit onderzoek is uw mening van essentieel belang. Ik wil u dan ook vragen of u wilt meewerken aan dit belangrijke onderzoek door een vragenlijst in te vullen. Indien u klikt op de link onderaan deze mail, wordt u automatisch doorverwezen naar het begin van de vragenlijst. Het invullen duurt ongeveer 15 minuten en de door u verstrekte informatie wordt
anoniem en strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld.
Wanneer alle gegevens verzameld en verwerkt zijn, wordt een rapportage gemaakt op basis van het eerste onderzoeksmateriaal. Dit zal enkele maanden in beslag nemen. Wij informeren u graag over de algemene resultaten en aanbevelingen van dit onderzoek. Indien u dit wenst, kunt u dit aan het einde van de vragenlijst aangeven.
Zou u zo vriendelijk willen zijn om de vragenlijst vóór 18 juni a.s. in te vullen?
Indien u nog vragen heeft, kunt u uiteraard contact met mij opnemen. Ik ben het beste bereikbaar via onderstaand e-mailadres.
Alvast heel hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Met vriendelijke groeten,
Delinah Halvorson-Molen
UMCG reminder
Onderwerp: herinnering: Hoe kijkt u aan tegen uw carrière? Geachte mevrouw,
Op 9 juni jl. heeft u een mail ontvangen van <<naam>>, directeur UMCG staf P&O, met daarin de uitnodiging om mee te werken aan mijn afstudeerscriptie voor de opleiding Human Resource Management. Om mijn scriptie, en daarmee mijn studie, goed te kunnen afronden, ben ik op zoek naar vrouwen in een groei- of hogere functie die een vragenlijst in willen vullen om te achterhalen wat hen typeert, hoe ze zijn gekomen waar ze nu zijn en wat hen motiveert in het werk. Hierbij is uw mening essentieel.
Indien u al de tijd heeft genomen om de vragenlijst in te vullen, wil ik u daarvoor hartelijk danken en hoeft u verder geen aandacht te schenken aan deze e-mail. Indien u echter de vragenlijst nog niet heeft ingevuld, wil ik u vriendelijk verzoeken dit alsnog te doen. Voor het onderzoek is het belangrijk om zoveel mogelijk ingevulde vragenlijsten te verzamelen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 15 minuten. Er zijn geen juiste of onjuiste antwoorden en uiteraard wordt de door u verstrekte informatie anoniem en strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld.
Zou u zo vriendelijk willen zijn om de digitale vragenlijst binnen een week, doch uiterlijk 30 juni a.s., in te vullen? Indien u klikt op de link onderaan deze mail, wordt u automatisch doorverwezen naar het begin van de vragenlijst.
Indien u nog vragen heeft, kunt u uiteraard contact met mij opnemen. Ik ben het beste bereikbaar via onderstaand e-mailadres.
Alvast heel hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Met vriendelijke groeten,
Delinah Halvorson-Molen
University of Groningen covering letter
faculteit economie en bedrijfskunde human resource management &
organizational behavior
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen <<naam faculteit>>
T.a.v. <<naam respondent>> <<adres>> Mw. D. Halvorson-Molen T +31 (0)50 363 4288 Landleven 5 Groningen Postbus 800 9700 AV Groningen Datum 13 mei 2008 Onderwerp
Hoe kijkt u aan tegen uw carrière?
Geachte mevrouw <<naam respondent>>,
Recentelijk is er veel aandacht in de media voor de loopbanen van vrouwen. Volgens Minister Plasterk moet het ‘glazen plafond’ nu echt doorbroken worden, en Agnes Jongerius van het FNV stelt voor om een quotum in te voeren zodat in 2012 vrouwen 40 procent van de topfuncties in Nederland bekleden.
Kortom, het hoe en wat rondom carrières van vrouwen is een ‘hot item’. Mijn naam is Delinah Halvorson-Molen en ik volg de Master-opleiding Human Resource Management aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. In het kader van mijn afstudeeropdracht doe ik, in samenwerking met dr. F. Rink, onderzoek onder vrouwen in een groei- of hogere functie om te achterhalen wat hen typeert, hoe ze zijn gekomen waar ze nu zijn, wat hen motiveert in het werk en wat de eventuele moeilijkheden zijn waar ze tegen aan lopen.Hierbij is uw mening essentieel.
vragenlijst in te vullen. De resultaten van dit onderzoek kunnen door organisaties gebruikt worden om andere vrouwen te helpen hoge functies te bereiken bijvoorbeeld door het aanbieden van bepaalde HR-instrumenten zoals specifieke trainingen voor hoger management en mentoring.
Wanneer alle gegevens verzameld en verwerkt zijn, wordt een rapportage gemaakt op basis van het eerste onderzoeksmateriaal. Dit zal enkele maanden in beslag nemen. Wij informeren u graag over de algemene resultaten en aanbevelingen van dit onderzoek. Indien u dit wenst, kunt u dit aan het einde van de vragenlijst aangeven.
Enkele aandachtspunten
Deze vragenlijst gaat over uw eigen mening over uw werk en heeft dus een individueel karakter. Vul daarom de vragenlijst op een rustig moment in zonder met anderen te overleggen. Het gaat immers om uw eigen persoonlijke ervaringen en niet om die van anderen.
De door u verstrekte informatie wordt anoniem en strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld.
Voor het slagen van het onderzoek is het erg belangrijk dat u alle vragen invult. Ook als u twijfelt over het antwoord, dan vragen wij u toch uit de gegeven mogelijkheden een antwoord te kiezen dat uw mening het beste weergeeft.
Het invullen zal ongeveer 15 minuten in beslag nemen.
Er zijn geen juiste of onjuiste antwoorden. Geef steeds aan wat u zelf het best passende antwoord vindt.
Zou u zo vriendelijk willen zijn om de ingevulde vragenlijst deze week aan mij te retourneren door middel van de bijgevoegde antwoordenvelop?
Indien u nog vragen heeft, kunt u uiteraard contact met mij opnemen. Ik ben het beste bereikbaar via onderstaand e-mailadres.
Alvast heel hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Met vriendelijke groeten,
Delinah Halvorson-Molen
