Think Manager, Think Male: Expectation or Reality for Female Managers?

Master’s Thesis University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Think Manager, Think Male:

Expectation or Reality for Female

Managers?

An empirical analysis of women’s human values in supervising positions

by

Olivia Anna Maria Kallwass, S2958872

M.Sc. Business Administration, Profile Strategic Innovation Management

Supervisor: Dr. F. Noseleit Coassessor: Dr. P. M. M. de Faria

Abstract

Table of Content

1 Introduction ... 4

2 Literature Review ... 6

2.1 Concepts and Definitions ... 6

2.1.1 Human values ... 6

2.1.2 Gender and stereotypes ... 10

2.1.3 Supervisors ... 12

2.2 Prior Research ... 12

2.2.1 Gender differences in the preference for values ... 12

2.2.2 Think Manager Think Male ... 14

3 Methodology ... 17

3.1 Sample and Data ... 17

3.2 Measurements ... 17

3.2.1 Dependent and independent variables ... 17

3.2.2 Control variables. ... 19

3.3 Analysis ... 21

4 Results ... 22

4.1 Gender ... 22

4.2 Supervising Position ... 24

5 Discussion and Conclusion ... 26

5.1 Findings ... 26

5.2 Implications ... 28

5.3 Limitations and Future Research ... 29

References ... 31

1 Introduction

“I sit here today not having a comfortable relationship with power, ambition, or leadership. For men, leadership, power, and ambition are unambiguously good words. As men get more successful and lead more, they’re better liked. For women, those things are not encouraged and actually are actively discouraged, because all of us, men and women alike, dislike women who are more successful. As men get more successful, they are liked more. As women get more successful, they are liked less. That is a really powerful negative incentive for women to lead.” −Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of Facebook (Barsh, 2013)

The gender imbalance in leadership positions remains a major challenge for European countries. The discrepancy between the large number of female university graduates and their underrepresentation in leading positions shows there is an untapped potential of capable human resources. As women are still facing numerous obstacles on their way to the top, this imbalance can be seen as a waste of highly qualified and needed human resources.

Approximately 45% of the workers in the European Union (EU) are women (Eurostat, 2016). In addition, around 56% of tertiary students are female, and female university graduates have been in the surplus for years (Eurostat, 2012). In this sense, women are more prepared to enter the labor market than men but their representation decreases once they get to leadership positions. The key indicator for gender representation in EU decision-making committees shows that the proportion of women involved in decision-making processes in top positions is still very low, although there are small signs of progress. In January 2012, women averaged only 13.7% of seats in the highest decision-making bodies1 of the largest listed companies in the EU Member States (European Commission, 2016a). Two major reasons for the gender bias in leadership positions could be that women face fewer opportunities than men to develop themselves professionally, and that female skills are not being used optimally. This in turn means a disadvantage for the women themselves and the economy in general (Duehr & Bono, 2006). The empowerment of women to take over leading positions is important for economic growth and for a competitive market. In fact, there is a clear business case for greater diversity in corporate boards, both from a microeconomic perspective as well as from a macroeconomic perspective.

1 _{The European Commission defines a decision-making position as follows: “A decision-making position will be}

Studies from different countries show that companies with a higher percentage of women in top positions have stronger organizational and financial performance (Brooke & Williamson, 2009; D. Brown & Anastasopoulos, 2002; Catalyst, 2004; Davies et al., 2011; Desvaux, 2007, 2010; Desvaux & Devillard, 2008; Kotiranta, Kovalainen, & Rouvinen, 2010; N. Smith, Smith, & Verner, 2005). Among these studies, research by McKinsey & Company has shown that companies with a high gender diversity reported a 17 point increase in their stock market price between the years 2005 and 2007, and that, between 2003 and 2005, their average operating profit was almost twice as high compared to the sector average (Desvaux, 2007, 2010). Studies have indicated that the quality of management and ethical behavior is higher in companies with a larger proportion of women in the highest decision-making bodies (D. Brown & Anastasopoulos, 2002; Franke, Crown, & Spake, 1997). The glass ceiling2, which keeps women from decision-making positions, can decrease women's courage and willingness to develop their full professional potential. This threatens to hamper economic growth because of the reduction in the available labor force, as poor career prospects prevent women from remaining in paid employment (Duehr & Bono, 2006). If no leadership positions are occupied by women, this could lead to a devil's circle, which exacerbates both the gender-based employment differences and the gender-specific pay gap (OECD, 2008).

Causes for this gender-specific segregation at management levels are often discussed in terms of societal as well as company-related factors. However, special behavioral patterns of women also have an effect. Studies show that, still today, the concept of female leadership is only partially present in the society’s mindset (Antal & Izraeli, 1993; Kotiranta et al., 2010). The stereotype of a manager is still male and attributed with male characteristics and values. This way of thinking is often referred to as the “Think Manager, Think Male” (TMTM) phenomenon, a term first used by psychologist Dr. Virgina E. Schein in the early 1970s (Agars, 2004; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Block, Simon, & Martell, 1989; Schein, 1973). Antal & Izraeli (1993, p. 63) even state that “[…] probably the single most important hurdle for women in management in all industrialized countries is the persistent stereotype that associates management with being male”. Yet, what makes someone behave feminine or masculine; how can you tell whether a person has male or female values? Values can be defined as abstract concepts or beliefs that relate to the goals of a person and serve as guidelines in life (Schwartz, 1992). In other words, they describe what is fundamental to a person and thus form a substantial

2 _{The term "glass ceiling" is a metaphor for the phenomenon that qualified women hardly enter the top positions}

part of a person's identity. The socio-psychologist Shalom Schwartz developed a generally accepted model that consists of ten values (Schwartz, 1994). By using the results of three studies (Di Dio, Saragovi, Koestner, & Aube, 1996; Feather, 1984; Rokeach, 1973), Lyons et al. (2005) matched Schwartz’s value types with the corresponding gender, providing a framework for the stereotypical attribution of specific values to one gender.

Because of her minority status and the TMTM phenomenon, a woman in a leadership position becomes a twofold deviationist: she is not a typical woman because she does not have a typical female role, and she is not a typical manager because she is a woman (Gmür, 2004; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). As a result, her ascent is not a well-marked way to the top, but a tightrope walk between the female role and the leadership role. Research has so far focused on the differences between male and female characteristics and values, both in general as well as in management positions (Lyons et al., 2005; Struch, Schwartz, & van der Kloot, 2002). However, one aspect has been neglected. So far, there is no research on the difference between the values held by women in leadership positions and those held by women without supervisory duties, thus whether the TMTM stereotypes are actually viable here. This research thus aims to contribute to the literature by conducting empirical research to answer the research question: does the TMTM stereotype have an impact on the values of women in supervising positions or is it outdated?

This paper will proceed with conducting an extant literature review in order to provide a detailed theoretical background of women in leadership and human values. Then, the hypotheses are established based on the existing literature. The following methodology section provides insights about the variables and how the statistical analysis is conducted. The analysis is based on data from the European Social Survey (ESS), an academically driven cross-national survey that has been conducted across Europe since 2001. Finally, the interpretation of results with comparison to the hypotheses is presented in order to reach conclusions and provide implications as well as suggestions for future research.

2 Literature Review

2.1.1 Hum an values

2.1.1 Human values. Schwartz defines values as "[…] desirable, transsituational

Table 1 presents the definition of the ten types of values on the basis of their underlying motivational objectives, and lists specific values that mainly express these objectives.

Table 1

Ten Value Types

Value Type Definition Values

Universalism Understanding, tolerance and protection for the well-being of all people and nature

Equality, oneness with nature, wisdom, a world of beauty, social justice, worldliness, protect the environment, a world of peace Benevolence Maintain and promote the

well-being of close people

Willingness to help, sense of

responsibility, forgiveness, honesty, loyalty, mature love, faithful

friendship Conformity Oppression of actions that violate

others and force social expectations violently

Obedience, self-discipline, courtesy, honor parents and older people

Tradition Respect and commitment to cultural or religious customs and ideas

Respect tradition, accept my “portion” in life, modesty, temperance

Security Security and stability of society, relationship and one’s self

National security, reciprocity of pleasure, family security, sense of belonging

Power Social status, dominance over people and resources

Social power, possession, authority, keep one’s countenance in public, social recognition

Achievement Personal success according to social standards

Ambition, influence, ability, success, intelligence, self-respect Hedonism Joy and sensual gratification Enjoyment, enjoy life

Stimulation Requires change and stimulation to reach an optimal level of activation

Exciting and varied life, “dare”

Self-Direction Independent thinking and acting Freedom, creativity, independence, personal choice, curiosity self-respect

Note. Adapted from Schwartz (1992)

towards tradition values is congruent with the fulfillment of conformity values: both motivate actions that are oriented towards the fulfillment of external expectations.

Figure 1. The Structure of Value Relations. Reprinted from Schwartz (1994).

The circular arrangement of the types of values in Figure 1 forms a motivational continuum (see also Hinz, Brähler, Schmidt, and Albani, 2005). The closer the two types of values are to each other, the more similar the motivations underlying them, and the further two types of values lie apart, the more opposing the motivations underlying them. On the first dimension of the second order, the two types of self-enhancement are opposed to the values of universalism and benevolence. The enhancement values emphasize the pursuit of self-interest, while the latter two are directed towards the consideration of the well-being of others. On the dimension of openness for change vs. self-determination and stimulation are counter to the values of safety, conformity and tradition. The first two values emphasize independent action and thinking as well as the willingness for new experiences. The three opposite types of values represent self-restriction, order, and resistance to change. The value of hedonism combines openness and self-elevation (Schwartz, 2003).

The basic assumption for describing the relationships of basic human values is that actions in the pursuit of any value have consequences that can be congruent with or conflict

with other values. The idea of the representation in the circle is that the closer two values lie in an arbitrary direction, the more similar their underlying motivation. After a value has been learned, it is integrated into an organized system of values in which each value is ordered in its priority relative to the other values and thus by the relative importance to one another. This set of sequenced values creates a system of value priorities. Societies and individuals can be characterized by their system of value priorities. Studies on value priorities deal with the importance of certain values as part of the value system of a person or group (Döring et al., 2015; Prince-Gibson & Schwartz, 1998; Roccas, Schwartz, & Amit, 2010; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005). The absolute significance of a single value over individuals or groups ignores the fact that values function as a system. Schwartz directly addresses the issue of the correction of response tendencies – also referred to as acquiescence (T. W. Smith, 2004). The use of a scale correction converts absolute value scores into scores which represent the relative importance of each value in the value system: the individual value priorities (Schwartz, 1994, 2005a, 2005b). In the methodology section, this problem will be further addressed.

2.1.2 Gender and stereoty pes

2.1.2 Gender and stereotypes. Stereotypes are usually understood as cognitive

structures that reflect the knowledge of a social group. Gender stereotypes describe knowledge structures (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) on widely accepted conceptions of "typically male" and "typically female" characteristics and behaviours. Ashmore and Del Boca (1979) define gender stereotypes as structured patterns of attitudes towards characteristics of men and women. Different age, religion, social levels, family status, and educational class provide consistent results on which features are characteristic for men or women (Eckes, 2008). The content of gender stereotypes is clearly demonstrated by extensive empirical research (Freeman, 1987; Kite, Deaux, & Haines, 2008). In order to explicitly capture gender stereotypes, persons are asked to what extent they assign certain characteristics to a typical man or a typical woman. In this way, lists of unrelated attributes are created which are linked in their typicality either to the male or to the female stereotype. On the basis of such lists, Rosenkrantz et al. (1968) developed the Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire. With the aid of this questionnaire the research group recorded the contents of the gender stereotypes by providing participants with rating scales where they had to choose the extent to which they believed different characteristics to be typically male or female. Further, the social desirability of the items requested was recorded. In addition to a number of typically masculine and feminine characteristics, Rosenkrantz et al. (1968) also received information about which characteristics are viewed positively in the sense of social norms and values. The results show that the typical man should have rationality, self-assurance, non-emotionality, performance orientation, independence, competitiveness, aggressiveness and dominance. The typical woman, on the other hand, should be willing to help, have empathy, sensitivity towards others, gentleness, dependency, indulgence, emotionality, incompetence, passivity, no ambition and reactivity. The male characteristics can be summarized from the point of view of competence or instrumentality, the feminine under warmth or expressiveness (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972).

is shown when the number of positively evaluated feminine properties is compared with the number of positively evaluated masculine characteristics. This effect does not appear when the average desirability is formed across all masculine and feminine characteristics. In other words, the variance in the evaluation of typical masculine properties is significantly greater than the typical feminine properties.

2.1.3 Supervisors

2.1.3 Supervisors. Supervisors are persons who have been entrusted with subordinate

staff within an institution (e.g. company, public administration, authority, military). The division of labor requires a division into task bearing and deciding activities, which are characterized by a mutual ranking (Child, 1980; Greguras & Ford, 2006; Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2011). A manager shall have the power to order the task bearers, within the framework of the Directorate, what tasks should be undertaken and which ones they should refrain from (T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata, 2002). Managers can make use of their right to give instructions orally (order, command) or through writing (work instructions, service instructions). Through their leadership position, they assume responsibility and delegate implementation competences. The management tasks of a supervisor include organization, planning, objective, decision, coordination, information, employee evaluation and control (Avolio, Sosik, & Berson, 2012; Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Murphy, Eckstat, & Parker, 1995). In addition, supervisors (in the case of legal persons, exclusively the legal representatives) also assume the responsibility that the persons subordinate to them are adequately trained, especially with regard to work safety (Deluga, 1994). In the course of this paper, the terms manager, leader and supervisor are meant to be understood as synonyms.

2.2 Prior Research 2.2.1 Gender differences in the preference for values

2.2.1 Gender differences in the preference for values. The results of previous

emphasis on power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and self-direction values than women. Women, on the other hand, placed greater emphasis on benevolence and universalism values than men. Therefore, they conclude that for women the self-transcendence values and for men the opposing self-enhancement values have more significance. Schwartz and Rubel (2005) showed that inconsistencies in the findings about this topic were due to the small sample sizes and selected subjects. Table 2 provides an overview of the literature findings.

Table 2

Overview male and female values

Author (year) Stereotypically male values Stereotypically female values Not identifiable Rokeach (1973) Achievement Hedonism Power Self-direction Stimulation Benevolence Security Universalism Conformity* Tradition* Di Dio (1996) Stimulation Self-Direction Hedonism Power Benevolence Security Universalism Achievement* Conformity* Tradition* Schwartz & Rubel (2005) Achievement Hedonism Power Self-direction Stimulation Universalism Benevolence Security Tradition Conformity Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz (2009) Achievement Hedonism Power Self-direction Stimulation Benevolence Security Universalism Conformity Tradition Schwartz (2012) Achievement Hedonism Power Self-direction Stimulation Benevolence Security Universalism Conformity Tradition

* Not mentioned in the study.

H1a: Men have higher value priorities (relative to women) for achievement, hedonism,

power, self-direction and stimulation.

H1b: Women have higher value priorities (relative to men) for benevolence, security and

universalism.

2.2.2 Thin k Manager Thin k Male

2.2.2 Think Manager, Think Male.

“Judging from the high ratio of men to women in managerial positions and the informal belief that this is how it should be, the managerial job can be classified as a masculine occupation. If so, then the managerial position would seem to require personal attributes often thought of to be more characteristic of men than women.”

and thereby aligning themselves with the role of leadership. This phenomenon of TMTM has been confirmed in numerous studies with management students and managers; more recent studies have also shown that leadership is primarily associated with the male stereotype (e.g. Harris, 2002; Powell, Butterfield, & Parent, 2002; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2011; Schein et al., 1996; Van Engen, Van der Leeden, & Willemsen, 2001).

for the description of men and women. The measurement usually takes place via the correlation coefficient (r '). Similar to the studies on the basis of BSRI, this approach shows a remarkable constancy of the results: In all studies, the managerial profiles showed a high agreement with the description of typical men. The correlation coefficients are always highly significant (p <.01) over the entire period, in all countries as well as for the responding students, practitioners, men and women. In most studies, there was no significant correlation for the interviewed men between the managers' profiles and the descriptions of typical women, whereas this is significantly positive in the women surveyed. The reason for this is that the women surveyed see minor differences between typical men and women than do the men surveyed. In most cases, managerial ideal profiles are more consistent with typically male profiles than with typically female profiles, however, some studies show that the values are largely approaching each other (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989) or are even reversing (Orser, 1994). The interviewed men and women describe ideal managers largely similar, but the surveyed men are convinced that women are clearly different from these ideals, while the women questioned usually assume a high similarity. No significant differences are found between the studies of students and middle managers, although the respondents clearly differ from each other by age. In the series of American studies between 1970 and 1990, the results of the men and women questioned increasingly differed because, from a female point of view, ideal managers occupy an intermediate position between typical men and women, while the questioned men still see typical women dissimilar to ideal managers.

Combining the findings of the literature review, especially the gender differences in value priorities and the TMTM phenomenon, it can be expected that, in order to be in a supervising position, one has to share value priorities that are similar to those of men. This implies that women in supervising positions show more similarities with men in their value priorities relative to women in non-supervising positions. Thus, the following hypotheses will be tested:

H2a: Women in supervising positions have higher value priorities (relative to women in

non-supervising positions) for achievement, hedonism, power, self-direction and stimulation.

H2b: Women in supervising positions have lower value priorities (relative to women in

3 Methodology

This research was conducted using an already existing dataset from the European Social Survey (ESS). The ESS is a socio-scientific study that has conducted opinion polls on social and political issues from over 30 European countries since 2001. The aim of the ESS is to find out how social values, cultural norms and behavioral patterns are distributed, as they differ within and between countries. The ESS has established itself as one of the most internationally renowned comparative studies. Due to its high methodological standards, the ESS is also the most widely used study for comparative analyzes in Europe in research and teaching. Apart from the Eurobarometer by the European Commission and the European Values Study, the ESS is the largest European social science survey project to date. To ensure the relevance of the research, the analyses are based on the seventh – the most recent – round of the ESS from 2014 which included 21 countries and data from 40,185 respondents. The participants of the study include a random sample of residents of each country that must be “[…] aged 15 and over (no upper age limit) resident within private households in each country, regardless of their nationality, citizenship or language” (The ESS Sampling Expert Panel, 2016, p. 5). For the ESS, Schwartz developed a shortened 21-item scale to measure value priorities (European Social Survey, 2016). The respondents were asked to read descriptions of people and indicate how much each person is or is not like them by using a six-point rating scale ranging from 1 = “Very much like me” to 6 = “Not like me at all”.

In order to preserve the meaningfulness of the value priorities, those respondents which had not answered more than five of the 21 items and/or evaluated more than 16 of the 21 items with the same score were eliminated from the data set (Schwartz, 2005b). Further, for a more intuitive understanding of the value importance, the value scores were inverted so that a higher value score represents a higher importance (6 = “Very much like me”, … 1 = “Not like me at all”).

3.2 Measurements 3.2.1 Dependent and independent variables

3.2.1 Dependent and independent variables.

Table 3

Values and index items

Value Item # Item meaning (important to...)

Conformity 7,16 follow rules at all times; always behave properly Tradition 9,20 not ask for more than what you have and be modest; be

religious

Benevolence 12,18 help people around them; be loyal to friends

Universalism 3,8,19 every person in the world be treated equally; listen to people who are different; care for nature

Self-Direction 1,11 be creative; be free and make own decisions Stimulation 6,15 do lots of different things in life; take risks Hedonism 10,21 have a good time; have fun

Achievement 4,13 show their achievements; be successful and impress others Power 2,17 be rich; be in charge

Security 5,14 live in secure surroundings; to know that their country be safe from threats from within and without

Note. Adapted from the European Social Survey (2016).

data as these techniques directly model the individual use of the scale (Schwartz, 2005a, 2005b). Thus, a correction for individual differences in scale use has to be executed. For this, the mean score of all answered items has to be computed and in the next step subtracted from each mean of the raw items. From the resulting centered mean scores, the two scores for Conformity and Tradition were omitted (as already mentioned in chapter 2.2.1) while the other eight scores were used as dependent variables in the analysis. The Cronbach’s alphas for the centered mean scores were relatively low. This is due to two reasons. First, there are only two or three items to represent each index, thus reducing the probability of a higher internal reliability. Second, the items are supposed to describe a broad image of every index and not a narrow concept (Saris, Knoppen, & Schwartz, 2013). Thus, relatively low alphas were to be expected.

According to the aforementioned hypotheses, the analysis will focus on differences between male and female respondents as well as those in supervising and non-supervising positions. For this purpose, the independent variables make use of the variables Gender (gndr)3 and Responsible for supervising other employees (jbspv)4. As the variable jbspv includes other answers than yes and no, the cases including these answers were excluded from the data.

3.2.2 Control variables.

3.2.2 Control variables. The two proposed hypotheses treat gender and supervisory

positions as independent variables, which may influence the respondents’ value priorities. However, other effects that could affect these relationships must also be controlled for. The literature has already shown that other variables have a direct impact on value priorities (Schwartz et al., 2001). Therefore, three sociodemographic variables are additionally introduced and their effect on the relationship between the previously mentioned independent variables on the value priorities is examined. These variables are Age of respondent, calculated (agea), highest level of education (edulvlb) and country (cntry). If interactions between the dependent variables and these control variables are found, this may support the view that, in addition to the aforementioned independent variables, other circumstances might influence value priorities.

Age. Past studies have shown that in the course of life the tendency towards different values changes (Glen, 1974; Prince-Gibson & Schwartz, 1998; Rokeach, 1973). With an increasing age, people tend to become more habitual and less exposed to exciting new challenges. It can thus be assumed that age is positively correlated with preservation values and negatively correlated with openness values as well as hedonism (Feather, 1984). Once people start planning their families and occupy stable professional occupations, they tend to focus less

on themselves and more on the wellbeing of other. Therefore, a positive correlation with self-transcendence values and a negative correlation with self-enhancement values can be expected (Veroff, Reuman, & Feld, 1984). The corresponding variable in the dataset is the variable Age of respondent, calculated (agea) giving a numerical answer about the respondent’s age.

Education level. The dataset gives information about the education level of each respondent (Highest level of education; edulvlb) by using UNESCO’s International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). The ISCED classifies and characterizes school types and school systems. It distinguishes several levels and is also suitable for the indication of the educational level (the highest level of education) in an international comparison. The levels range from 1 (primary education) to 6 (doctoral degree or equivalent) (UIS, OECD, & Statistical Office of the European Communities, 2015). Various studies have shown that the number of years of education has an influence on the value priorities of individuals (Kohn & Schooler, 1983; Liben, 2015; Prince-Gibson & Schwartz, 1998; Steinmetz, Schmidt, Tina-Booh, Wieczorek, & Schwartz, 2009). Educational experiences can support the intellectual openness and knowledge that are essential for self-directional values. They can increase the student’s openness to non-routine ideas and activities which are central elements to the stimulation value (Kohn & Schooler, 1983). Higher educational qualifications encourage the development of tolerant and individualistic attitudes or even presupposes them. In addition, people with higher education qualifications usually work in an environment where such values can be regarded as functional (Prince-Gibson & Schwartz, 1998). Further, schools and universities are also important socialization institutions in which the fundamental values of a political system are mediated. As a rule, the assignment of a certificate is even explicitly or implicitly linked to the transfer of these values (Weakliem, 2002).

consists of string values, the new variable Country (cntrynum) was created. In this variable, the countries received a numerical value (1 to 21) in order to be used as a control variable.

3.3 Analysis

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a method that analyzes the effect of one (or more) independent variables on one (or more) dependent variables. Using the ANOVA, you can thus test hypothesis similar to a t-test in independent samples, according to which the mean values of a variable are the same in different case groups in the population. However, a major difference between the ANOVA and the t-test in independent samples is that you can compare several mean values with the ANOVA, whereas the t-test only allows the comparison of two mean values. The null hypothesis tested with the ANOVA procedure assumes that all the group mean values of the test variables are identical in the basic population when compared with one another. In addition to this simultaneous comparison of all mean values, the procedure also performs multiple comparison tests, with which it is possible to identify between which of the groups there are significant mean value differences. For the independent variable, a nominal scale is required, while the dependent variable must have a metric scale level. (Backhaus, Erichson, Plinke, & Weiber, 2015)

The method of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) has the advantage over the univariate solution that several dependent variables can be considered in the evaluation. Moreover, the corrections of the significance level for the reduction of the alpha error, which would be necessary if several single-factor variance analyzes were used, are dispensed with. A further advantage is that mutual relationships of the dependent variables can be taken into account. It is certainly a disadvantage that the number of variables that are included in the calculation reduces the number of test persons in each "cell" (Bortz & Döring, 2002). According to Bühl and Zöfel (2002), the results of the MANOVA are secured by the test variables of the "Pillai’s Trace", "Wilks’ Lambda", "Hotelling’s Trace" and "Roy’s Largest Root ". These test variables are assigned an F-value, which leads to a significance value (p). The "Pillai’s Trace" is considered to be the strongest and most robust test method in the test series and is therefore also used in this research (p≤0.05 significant results).

fraction attributable to the covariates is first determined. This corresponds in principle to an upstream regression analysis. The observed values of the dependent variables are corrected by the influence determined by the regression analysis and then subjected to the variance analysis. For the purpose of this study, two MANCOVAs were conducted. The first MANCOVA used the variable Gender as the independent factor and the eight relevant values as dependent factors. In order to correct for structural differences, the three control variables Country, highest level of education, and Age of respondent, calculated were applied as covariates. For the second MANCOVA, a filter was applied to filter out all male respondents. After this, the MANCOVA was conducted using the variable Responsible for supervising other employees as the independent factor and the eight relevant values as dependent factors. Same as with the first MANCOVA, the three control variables were also applied here.

4 Results

After filtering out the insignificant responses, the dataset used for the analysis contained answers from N=16,565 male respondents and N=18,385 female respondents. A one-way MANCOVA (see Table 4) revealed significant multivariate effects for the three control variables, Pillai’s Trace = .055, F (8, 34938) = 255.96, p <. 001, Pillai’s Trace = .019, F (8, 34938) = 85.28, p <. 001, and Pillai’s Trace = .174, F (8, 34938) = 917.22, p <. 001 respectively. This was expected since past studies have supported the view that these variables effect the value priorities of individuals. Further, it also revealed a significant multivariate main effect for the independent variable Gender, Pillai’s Trace = .041, F (8, 34938) = 187.23, p <. 001. The multivariate effect size measurement η2 = .041 indicates that approximately 4.1% of multivariate variance of the dependent variables is associated with the group factor Gender. It is not necessary to perform a post-hoc test since there are only two values in the gender variable. These results do not represent whether the effect of the variable Gender is significant for all values; it states that this effect is significantly related to at least one of the ten dependent variables.

Table 4

Significant Multivariate Effects (at p<.001 level)a

Variable(s) Pillai’s Trace F df Error df

Intercept .176 933.269b 8 34938

Country .055 255.955b 8 34938

Highest level of education .019 85.278b 8 34938

Age of respondent, calculated .174 917.223b 8 34938

a_{Design: Intercept + cntrynum + edulvlb + agea + gndr} b_{Exact statistic}

Given the significance of the overall test, the univariate main effects were examined. The ANCOVAs indicate that the effect of the respondent’s gender is significantly different at the p<0.001 level for all values.

Table 5 displays the means and standard deviations for male and female respondents as well as the F- and p-value for each of the dependent variables.

Table 5

A comparison of the variable Gender’s F- and p-values, the means as well as standard deviations for male and female respondents for the eight relevant human values (N = 34,950)

F (Gender) Gender M SD

p (Gender)

Power - Centred value score 463.585 Male -.8423 .88102

.000 Female -1.0489 .90269

Achievement - Centred value score 299.642 Male -.4057 .92460

.000 Female -.5800 .96669

Hedonism - Centred value score 127.836 Male -.1341 .92964

.000 Female -.2573 .98211

Stimulation - Centred value score 284.797 Male -.6396 1.01724

.000 Female -.8249 .98682

Self-Direction - Centred value score 35.512 Male .4284 .77440

.000 Female .3780 .80448

Universalism - Centred value score 377.391 Male .5404 .65333

.000 Female .6760 .63831

Benevolence - Centred value score 622.548 Male .6495 .64534

.000 Female .8232 .66878

Security - Centred value score 520.260 Male .3228 .87285

.000 Female .5342 .84987

Table 6 gives an overview of the observed value priorities as well as the predicted priorities, as given in hypotheses 1a and 1b.

Table 6

Overview of the observed priorities and the predicted value priorities (Hypothesis 1a & 1b) Value Type Predicted Higher Observed Value Priority Diff. (Observed Higher)

Universalism F .6760 .5404 0.1356 (F)

Benevolence F .8232 .6495 0.1737 (F)

Security F .5342 .3228 0.2114 (F)

Note. Abbreviations: female (F); male (M)

These results show that indeed men have higher priorities (relative to women) for the values achievement, hedonism, power, self-direction and stimulation. Thus, the data supports hypothesis 1a.

The results show, that women have higher priorities (relative to men) for the values benevolence, security and universalism. Thus, hypothesis 1b is also supported.

4.2 Supervising Position

After filtering out the insignificant responses from the male respondents, the dataset used for the analysis contained answers from N=4,296 women responsible for supervising other employees and N=14,089 women not responsible for supervising other employees. A one-way MANCOVA (see Table 7) revealed significant multivariate effects for the three control variables, Pillai’s Trace = .068, F (8, 18373) = 166.559, p <. 001, Pillai’s Trace = .016, F (8, 18373) = 37.51, p <. 001, and Pillai’s Trace = .17, F (10, 18373) = 468.81, p <. 001 respectively. This was expected since past studies have supported the view that these variables effect the value priorities of individuals. Further, it also revealed a significant multivariate main effect for the independent variable Responsible for supervising other employees, Pillai’s Trace = .02, F (8, 18373) = 46.52, p <. 001. The multivariate effect size measurement η2 = .02 indicates that approximately 2% of the multivariate variance of the dependent variables is associated with the group factor Responsible for supervising other employees. It is not necessary to perform a post-hoc test since there are only two values in the gender variable. These results do not represent whether the effect of the variable Responsible for supervising other employees is significant for all values; it states that this effect is significantly related to at least one of the ten dependent variables.

Table 7

Significant Multivariate Effects (at p<.001 level)a

Variable(s) Pillai’s Trace F df Error df

Intercept .198 566.054b 8 18373

Country .068 166.559b 8 18373

Highest level of education .016 37.514b _{8 18373}

Age of respondent, calculated .170 468.807b 8 18373

Responsible for supervising other employees .020 46.524b 8 18373

Given the significance of the overall test, the univariate main effects were examined. The ANCOVAs indicate that the effect of whether a female respondent has a supervising position or not is significantly different at the p<0.005 level for all values.

Table 8

Table 5displays the means and standard deviations of supervising and non-supervising respondents as well as the F- and p-value for each of the dependent variables.

Table 8

A comparison of the variable Responsible for supervising other employees’s F- and p-values, and the means as well as standard deviations for supervising and non-supervising respondents for the eight relevant human values (N = 18,373)

F (Supervising) Supervising M SD p (Supervising)

Power - Centred value score 20.253 Yes -1.2248 .87947

.000 No -1.0288 .90873

Achievement - Centred value score 28.511 Yes -.5292 1.00602

.000 No -.5955 .95387

Hedonism - Centred value score 9.333 Yes -.2219 .95925

.002 No -.2681 .98875

Stimulation - Centred value score 24.826 Yes -.7549 .99691

.000 No -.8462 .98276

Self-Direction - Centred value score 199.404 Yes .5453 .75722

.000 No .3270 .81154

Universalism - Centred value score 8.849 Yes .7179 .64361

.004 No .6633 .63616

Benevolence - Centred value score 31.444 Yes .8839 .64378

.000 No .8046 .67515

Security - Centred value score 137.933 Yes .3900 .86259

.000 No .5782 .84107

Table 9 gives an overview of the observed value priorities as well as the predicted priorities, as given in hypotheses 2a and 2b.

Table 9

Overview of the observed priorities and the value predicted priorities (Hypothesis 1a and 1b)

Value Type Predicted Higher Observed Value Priority Diff. (Observed Higher)

N-SV SV

Power SV -1.0288 -1.2248 0.196 (N-SV)*

Achievement SV -.5955 -.5292 -0.0663 (SV)

Hedonism SV -.2681 -.2219 -0.0462 (SV)

Self-Direction SV .3270 .5453 -0.2183 (SV)

Universalism N-SV .6633 .7179 -0.0546 (SV)*

Benevolence N-SV .8046 .8839 -0.0793 (SV)*

Security N-SV .5782 .3900 0.1882 (N-SV)

Note. Abbreviations: women in non-supervising positions (N-SV); women in supervising positions (SV)

*Not supporting hypothesis 2a or 2b

The differences in value priorities that were proposed in hypotheses 2a and 2b can be found partially. Compared to women in non-supervising positions, the value priorities for achievement, stimulation, and self-direction are higher for women in supervising positions and a lower value priority for security was found. However, there was no support for higher value priorities relative to women in non-supervising positions in power or lower value priorities in universalism, and benevolence. Thus, the data only partially supports hypotheses 2a and 2b. The biggest differences between the two groups were found for self-direction, power, and security.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

Existing literature has analysed the value priority differences between different groups of people (e.g. men and women, different age groups, different nationalities etc.). However, prior research has failed to acknowledge the difference between persons on different power stages (i.e. supervising and non-supervising). Furthermore, the expectations for manager values have been proven to be those of typically male structure. Yet, prior research lacks empirical investigations whether those in powerful positions actually comply with these expectations. This study aimed to fill this research gap by analysing the different value priorities of men and women as well as of women in supervising positions and women in non-supervising positions.

results show similarities regarding gender differences in other psychological areas. As noted by Hyde and Plant (1995), the psychological gender differences often fall within the range of close to zero. The aforementioned differences in value priorities could thus also be partly explained by other variables.

plays an important role in this matter. However, the findings were highly significant and thus show to have an impact on the human value priorities of the respondents.

In both analyses, the results were controlled for by using the variables for the country of origin, the respondents’ age as well as their highest level of education. The findings suggest that a great part of the changes in the value priorities can be explained by the respondent’s age. This was not surprising as the respondents in the dataset had an age range of 15-93. Since this age range includes many different generations, it was expected that the values would vary between those ages in a great way. The country’s effect size in the analyses was also higher than the effect size of the two independent variables. This was also expected since there prior research has shown that cross-country effects can have a great impact on one’s values. The dataset included countries from Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Europe as well as Israel. These different parts of Europe have shown to have great differences in their culture and thus the great effect on the value priorities can also be explained by this (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011). The highest level of education had the smallest effect size of all the variables in the study. Not all changes in the value priorities were explained by the model. The changes might therefore also be attributed to other variables that were not analysed in this paper.

This research aimed to answer the question whether the TMTM stereotype has an impact on the values of women in leadership positions or whether it is outdated. In the present study, a great number of the literature reported results on different value preferences depending on sociodemographic and gender variables were confirmed. Especially, the differences between women in supervising and non-supervising positions lead to answers on this topic but also more questions regarding the reasons for these observations (see chapter 5.3). The expected results were only partly confirmed. Therefore, it seems that the TMTM phenomenon is outdated and needs adjustments. Propositions for these adjustments can be found in chapter 5.2.

5.2 Implications

Both Worlds”. Changing this stereotype could encourage women more to further pursue their careers and make them crack the glass ceiling. If companies encourage these changes and begin to select their managers and leaders based on their abilities and not on their gender, they could improve their productivity immensely (as already explained in chapter 1). However, these adjustments do not only have to be made by the head of companies. The view of the typical manager is an internal view that has to be changed in the whole society. Universities and high schools should actively distribute the “extended” TMTM. That way, they could encourage all of their students, in general, to not discriminate against or feel threatened by successful women and their female students, in particular, to not feel less suitable for successful careers.

5.3 Limitations and Future Research

Even though the findings generally support the views from the literature, there are some limitations in the present study that should be addressed in future research. The dataset used in this study from the ESS shows multiple points that limit this research. First of all, the dataset used in this study was published in 2014. Thus, the values might have changed since then and the reliability is not given to a great extent. Further, the value priorities project the subjective opinion of the respondents about themselves, this could thus lead to biased results. Another problem with the value priorities is that, since values are a very complex issue, the limited number of portraits that the respondents had to evaluate might decrease the validity of the value priorities. It would thus be advisable to carry out the research with a more detailed questionnaire in order to increase the finding’s validity. Moreover, the dataset did not give more information as to how the variable Responsible for supervising other employees was defined. It would thus be advised to conduct more research with more information on this variable for both the researcher as well as the respondents.

Future research could also investigate the underlying reasons for the value changes. It would thus be interesting to examine whether the female individuals changed their value priorities in accordance with the findings once they entered the supervising positions or whether they had already attributed the same importance beforehand. This could provide compelling results as it could answer whether these women only reached powerful positions because of their pre-existing value priorities or whether there were other reasons and the surroundings in the supervising positions made them change their value priorities.

proved to not behave in the anticipated way. For this, there should also be further discussions about the supervising role and what expectations and/or responsibilities it brings with it. This could also further explain the unanticipated results for these three values.

References

Agars, M. D. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(2), 103–111.

Antal, A. B., & Izraeli, D. N. (1993). A global comparison of women in management: Women managers in their homelands and as expatriates. In Women in Management: Trends, Issues, and Challenges in Managerial Diversity (pp. 52–102).

Arzheimer, K. (2011). Europa als Wertegemeinschaft? Ost und West im Spiegel des ‚Schwartz Value Inventory‘. In S. I. Keil & J. W. van Deth (Eds.), Deutschlands Metamorphosen. Einheit und Differenzen in europäischer Perspektive (pp. 73–99). Baden Baden, DE: Nomos.

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive—Social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5(2), 219–248. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., & Berson, Y. (2012). Leadership Models, Methods, and Applications:

Progress and Remaining Blind Spots. In Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership Models, Methods, and Applications. In Handbook of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2015). Multivariate analysemethoden: eine anwendungsorientierte einführung. Berlin: Springer.

Badger, K., Craft, R. S., & Jensen, L. (1998). Age and gender differences in value orientation among American adolescents. Adolescence, 33(131), 591–596.

Barsh, J. (2013). Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg: ‘No one can have it all’. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-no-one-can-have-it-all

Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 125–162.

Bennett, W., Stadt, R., & Karmos, J. (1997). Values Preferences by Gender for Nontraditional College Students Between 1992 and 1982. Counseling and Values, 41(3), 246–252. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2002). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler.

Berlin: Springer.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59–78. Brown, D., & Anastasopoulos, V. (2002). Women on boards: Not just the right thing … but the

‘bright’ thing. Report: 341-02. Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada.

Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, T. D., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The Customer Orientation of Service Workers: Personality Trait Effects on Self and Supervisor Performance Ratings. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 39(1), 110–119.

Bühl, A., & Zöfel, P. (2002). Erweiterte Datenanalyse mit SPSS. Wiesbaden, DE: Springer. Catalyst. (2004). The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity.

New York, NY: Catalyst.

Child, J. (1980). Factors associated with managerial rating of supervisory performance. Journal of Management Studies, 17(3), 275–302.

Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The Glass Ceiling Effect*. Social Forces, 80(2), 655–681.

Davies, E. M., Ducas, A., Mackenzie, A., Parker, J., Casserley, D., & Vinnicombe, S. (2011). Lord Davies Report: Women on boards. UK: United Kingdom Government.

Deaux, K., & Kite, M. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 107–139). Westport, CT, US: Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building , leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational, 67(4), 315–326. Desvaux, G. (2007). Women Matter 2007: Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver.

McKinsey & Company.

Desvaux, G. (2010). Women Matter 2010: Women at the top of corporations: Making it happen. McKinsey & Company.

Desvaux, G., & Devillard, S. (2008). Women Matter 2008: Female leadership, a competitive edge for the future. McKinsey & Company.

Di Dio, L., Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., & Aube, J. (1996). Linking personal values to gender. Sex Roles, 34(9–10), 621–636.

Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 353–364.

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 815–846.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42(7), 756–757. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are People Prejudiced Against Women? Some Answers From Research on Attitudes, Gender Stereotypes, and Judgments of Competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35.

Eckes, T. (2008). Geschlechterstereotype: Von Rollen, Identitäten und Vorurteilen. In Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung (pp. 171–182). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

European Commission. (2016a). Database: Women and men in decision-making. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/database/index_en.htm

European Commission. (2016b). Database on Women and Men in Decisionmaking (WMID): Methodology. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/database/wmid_methodology_aug_2016_full.pdf

European Social Survey. (2016). Human Values (Core - All rounds). Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/themes.html?t=values

Eurostat. (2012). Education and Training: Statistics Illustrated. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training

Eurostat. (2016). Employment by sex, age and citizenship. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/LFSA_EGAN

Fazio, R. H., Effrein, E. A., & Falender, V. J. (1981). Self-perceptions following social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 232–242.

Feather, N. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny, and the structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 604–620.

Fischbach, A., Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Horstmann, N. (2015). Leadership and gender stereotyping of emotions: Think manager - Think male? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(3), 153–162.

Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Whence Differences in Value Priorities?: Individual, Cultural, or Artifactual Sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7), 1127– 1144.

Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920–934.

Freeman, H. (1987). Structure and content of gender stereotypes: Effects of somatic appearance and trait information. Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Glen, N. D. (1974). Aging and conservatism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415, 176–186.

Gmür, M. (2004). Was ist ein ‘idealer Manager’ und was ist eine ‘ideale Managerin’? Geschlechtsrollenstereotypen und ihre Bedeutung für die Eignungsbeurteilung von Männern und Frauen in Führungspositionen. Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 18(4), 396–417.

Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 433–465.

Harris, H. (2002). Think international manager, think male: why are women not selected for international management assignments? Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(2), 175–203.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Simon, M. C., & Martell, R. E. (1989). Has Anything Changed? Current Characterizations of Men, Women, and Managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 935–942.

Hinz, A., Brähler, E., Schmidt, P., & Albani, C. (2005). Investigating the Circumplex Structure of the Portrait Values\nQuestionnaire (PVQ). Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 185–193.

Holyoak, K. J., & Gordon, P. C. (1983). Social reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 881–887.

Hyde, J. S., & Plant, E. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychological gender differences: Another side to the story. American Psychologist, 30, 159–161.

Kite, M., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. (2008). Gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories, 2, 205–236.

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub.

72). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kuntz, A., Davidov, E., Schwartz, S. H., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Human values, legal regulation, and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross-country comparison TT -. European Journal of Social Psychology TA -, 45(1), 120–134.

Liben, L. S. (2015). Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education. Sex Roles, 72(9–10), 401–426.

Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Culture, law, and corporate governance. International Review of Law and Economics, 25(2), 229–255.

Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex Roles, 53(9–10), 763–778.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

McConatha, J. T., Schnell, F., Volkwein, K., Riley, L., & Leach, E. (2003). Attitudes toward aging: a comparative analysis of young adults from the United States and Germany. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 57(3), 203–15.

Milburn, T. W., & Bass, B. M. (1983). Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, A Survey of Theory and Research. Political Psychology, 4(2), 415.

Murphy, E. F., Eckstat, A., & Parker, T. (1995). Sex and Gender Differences in Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2(1), 116–131.

OECD. (2008). OECD employment outlook 2008. OECD employment outlook: Vol. 2008. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Orser, B. (1994). Sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: an international perspective. Women in Management Review, 9(4), 11–19.

Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2011). The Relationships of Role Clarity and Organization-Based Self-Esteem to Commitment to Supervisors and Organizations and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1455–1485.

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, A. D. (1984). If ‘good managers’ are masculine, what are ‘bad managers’? Sex Roles, 10(7–8), 477–484.

Powell, G. N., Butterfield, A. D., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28(2), 177–193.

Prime, J., Jonsen, K., Carter, N., & Maznevski, M. L. (2008). Managers’ Perceptions of Women and Men Leaders: A Cross Cultural Comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 171–210.

Prince-Gibson, E., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Value Priorities and Gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(1), 49.

Roccas, S., Schwartz, S. H., & Amit, A. (2010). Personal Value Priorities and National Identification. Political Psychology, 31(3), 393–419.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: New York Free Press. Rosenkrantz, P. S., Vogel, S. R., Bee, H., Broverman, I. K., & Broverman, D. M. (1968).

Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 287–295.

Ruble, D. N., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1982). The Experience of Menarche. Child Development, 53(6), 1557.

Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis-think female: the glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager-think male stereotype. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470–484.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: direct relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 177–198. Retrieved from http://2-z

Saris, W., Knoppen, D., & Schwartz, S. H. (2013). Operationalizing the theory of human values: Balancing homogeneity of reflective items and theoretical coverage. Survey Research Methods, 7(1), 29–44.

Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95–100.

Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., & Jacobson, C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes

and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20(1–2), 103–110.

Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: a global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33–41.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.

Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations. Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, 259–319.

Schwartz, S. H. (2005a). Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e comportamento nas organizacões [Values and behavior in organizations] (pp. 21–55). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes.

Schwartz, S. H. (2005b). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual values. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work] (pp. 56– 95). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (1997). Influences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on Value Priorities in Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 18(2), 385–410.

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.

Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). Cross-National Variation in the Size of Sex Differences in Values: Effects of Gender Equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 171–85.

Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028. Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2005). 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.

Smith, T. W. (2004). Developing and Evaluating Cross-National Survey Instruments. In Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires (pp. 431–452). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spencer, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1979). Masculinity and femininity. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Srull, T. K., & Gaelick, L. (1983). General Principles and Individual Differences in the Self as a Habitual Reference Point: An Examination of Self-Other Judgments of Similarity. Social Cognition, 2(2), 108–121.

Methodology, 43(4), 599–616.

Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meanings of basic values for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 16–28.

The ESS Sampling Expert Panel. (2016). Sampling Guidelines: Principles and Implementation for the European Social Survey. London, UK: ESS ERIC Headquarters.

UIS, OECD, & Statistical Office of the European Communities. (2015). ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications. Montreal, Paris, Luxembourg: UIS, OECD, Eurostat. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002323/232343e.pdf

Van Engen, M. L., Van der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 581–598.

Veroff, J., Reuman, D., & Feld, S. (1984). Motives in American men and women across the adult life span. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1142–1158.