Gender differences and perceptions about promotion systems
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 2012 JENNA WIJERS Student number: 1615718 De Heze 59 7335 BB Apeldoorn Tel: +31 624867424 E-mail: s1615718@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: dr. L. B. Mulder, HRM & OB
ABSTRACT
There are not as many women at the top of organizations as men are, while organizations do perform better with more women at the top. There are several explanations for women not be represented at the top of organizations. One explanation could be gender differences in the use of impression management strategies. Using impression management strategies does help in getting a promotion. It was hypothesized that men are using more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies than women. Furthermore, it was researched if using impression management strategies and perceptions about promotion systems were related. It was hypothesized that when women perceive that promotions are based on factors that are unrelated to performance they are using more self-focused and other-focused
impression management strategies or that when women believe that promotions are not based on performance they are using more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies. There were no results found that support any gender differences in the use of impression management. None of the hypothesis about perception of promotion system was supported. Women were even using more self-focused impression management strategies when they believed that promotion system was based on performance. When the promotion system of organizations is really merely based on performance, self-focused impression management strategies do not seem effective. Women do feel more resistance against using self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies than men. This may have the effect that women are using impression management strategies different than men, regarding intensity, direction, and impact.
Organizational boards of directors have been preserved for men for decades. Men experience a career progression faster and advance higher than comparable women (Guadagno &
Cialdini, 2007). Virtually anywhere in the world is the proportion of women at the top not equal to the proportion of all the women working in that organization. Organizations are still fundamentally male-dominated (O’Neil, Hopkins & Bilimoria, 2008). In public discourse, several explanations are given for this fact. For example, women are not interested in board positions, and if they do they do not have the right leadership style or the right experience. However, these explanations appear to be all myths. Women are interested (Sealy,
Vinnicombe & Singh, 2008), they are successful in their leadership capabilities (Singh, Terjesen & Vinnicombe, 2008), and they have the right experiences (Singh et al., 2008). Despite the greater awareness of the strengths of women and the willingness of women, the percentage of women directors has not increased significantly over time (Oakley, 2000). How is this all possible and what can women do to change this?
Previous work outlined that there are a lot of differences between men and women and their use of impression management. This can be one reason that women are still not enough presented at the top of organizations. The current research will focus on the differences between men and women in the use of impression management. Also, it will focus on perceptions of promotion decisions. Promotion decisions can be based on performance and non-performance. The current research is focusing on the question if perceptions about
believe promotion decisions are based on performance. As for men perceptions about the promotion system does not matter in their use of impression management strategies.
THEORY
There are a lot of reasons why there should be more women at the top. Several studies (Adams & Ferreira, 2004; Carter, Simkins & Simpson, 2003; Erhardt, Werbel & Shrader, 2003; Fields & Keys, 2003; Shrader, Blackburn & Iles, 1997) concluded that organizations with more women on the boards had better financial performance than organizations with fewer women on boards. So, these organizations had higher return on equity, return on investments, total return to shareholders, and higher revenues and profit. These improved financial performance can have three explanations.
The first explanation is that gender diversity provides knowledge. Women have new and additional knowledge compared to men. Women have a lot of knowledge of consumer markets because they mostly control household spending (Simpson, Carter & D’Souza, 2010; Stephenson, 2004). Therefore, women may have different, innovative opinions that men do not have (Simpson, Carter & D’Souza, 2010).
Second, gender diversity influences group dynamics. The ratio of women on boards is positively related to open debates of boards (Nielson & Huse, 2010). Women bring additional knowledge and different viewpoints and are more likely to speak up when they are concerned or in doubt, this may lead to profound debates (Bilimoria & Huse, 1997; Huse & Solberg, 2006; Nielson & Huse, 2010). In addition, Nielson and Huse (2010) found that the ratio of women is negatively related to conflict. Women are more likely to accept others positions because they are helpful, kind, sympathetic, and concerned with the welfare of other people (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
strategic and operational control. Strategic control refers to monitoring managerial decisions about organizational strategy and policies such as safety, health, and environment (Nielson & Huse, 2010). Operational control refers to monitoring managerial decisions regarding the organizations financial and accounting situation (Nielson & Huse, 2010).
In sum, considering women for boards increases the talent pool for directors, there are more talents with lots of qualities from which organizations can choose. So gender diversity at boards can offer organizations several benefits. Considering the advantages of gender
diversity in organizational boards, it is a pity that women do not advance on the career ladder as easily as men. Women at the top of organizations in the Netherland is measured by Elite Group (2010). For this research, the top of organizations consists of board of directors, supervisory boards, and three layers below the board of directors (first, second, and third echelon). The number of women at the top of the 100 biggest organizations increased slowly and was 9,3% in 2009 (Elite Group, 2010). However, the number of women at the top of the 5000 biggest organizations decreased slightly and was 4,2% in 2009 (Elite Group, 2010). The number of women at the top of organizations is slowly increasing for some organizations and slightly decreasing for other organizations. Apparently there is a glass ceiling, which is a transparent barrier for women that prevents them from moving up the organizational ladder (Oakley, 2000). Why is that the case?
Career development is depending on a lot of factors (e.g. networking, mentoring, opportunity structures) which are mostly the same for men and women. However, some of these factors will primarily influence the career development of women (O’Neil et al., 2008). Family plays a major role in women’s careers. Women’s careers compromise more than work, they are embedded in the women’s larger life context, so work and private life are
men and women. Women’s career paths reflect a wide range and variety of patterns. Women have more snake-like careers than the mostly hierarchical progression up careers of men (Richardson, 1996). Women’s careers are more a zigzag (Gersick & Kram, 2002), their career paths can have patterns of upward mobility, stability, downward mobility, and fluctuation (Huang & Sverke, 2007). The paradox is that organizations still have the traditional linear organizational model of advancement (McDonald, Brown & Bradley, 2005; Hall & Mirvis, 1995). A lot of other reasons remain why women are not at the top of organizations. It is likely that women see themselves less qualified than men do, because they are less likely than men to be encouraged by others (Fox & Lawless, 2004).
However, an important explanation for the low number of women at the top of organizations can be gender differences in the use of impression management (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007; Singh, Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2002; Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004). As all individual actions provide information to others and have consequences, subordinates are active elements in the process of performance evaluation (Ilgen & Feldman, 1983). Goffman (1959) was one of the first researchers that recognized the role of impression management in social interactions. By using impression management, individuals influence the perception of others (Rosenfeld, Giacolone & Riordan, 1995), and try to control the impressions others form of them (Goffman, 1959).
doing a good job is not enough, it also has to be recognized (Thompson & Luthans, 1983; Singh et al., 2002).
The second reason why impression management influences promotability is visibility. Individuals have to differentiate themselves from others and demonstrate these distinctive characteristics (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2001). Making organizational activities visible to supervisors, shows that the individual is capable. Impression management is helping individuals to make themselves and their capabilities visible, especially to supervisors who are responsible for promotion decisions (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2001).
Last, is the effect of likability of the individual as perceived by the supervisor. By some techniques used by a subordinate, the supervisor feels more liked and will be more attracted to this individual. Therefore, when a subordinate is liked he/she is more likely to receive increased supply of resources, which can lead to actual higher performance (Feldman, 1986). In addition, liking can also influence the observation and storage of information on the subordinate. Supervisors are more inclined to remember positive information about the subordinates they like. It will affect the actual performance ratings because supervisors will remember positive work behaviors of the employees who they like (Wayne & Liden, 1995).
power or potential to hurt someone in order to be seen as dangerous. The last strategy is supplication, which means that people show their weaknesses and shortcomings so they elicit an attribution of being needy.
Next to this taxonomy there are a lot of other distinctions to explain impression
management, such as in terms of direct/indirect and assertive/defensive (Mohammed, Gardner & Paolillo, 1999), or strategic (long term) intention and tactical (short term) intention
(Tedeschi, 1990). The distinction that is used for this paper is the one used by Singh et al. (2002). They showed that impression management can be self-focused, job-focused, and other-focused. Self-focused tactics are used to convey the impression that one is capable, for example by telling supervisors about your achievements. Job-focused tactics refer to extra-contractual aspects of high performance and commitment, for example coming up with new ideas and delivering both your own and your supervisor’ goals. Other-focused tactics are targeted at supervisors or managers and the attempts to control their impressions, like networking with key people.
A reason why there are not so many women at the top of organization could be that they use different kind of impression management strategies than men do. Several studies showed that there are gender differences in the use of impression management. The strategies that men use are characterized as assertive and dominant (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007), while women are using more passive and cooperative strategies (Singh et al., 2002; Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Dubrin (1991) and Karsten (1994) concluded that men use a wider range of strategies and they are using these strategies more frequently than women (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). This could be explained by the fact the men may have the pressure to behave assertive (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007) and show higher levels of aggressiveness, assertiveness,
Women tend to use less self-focused impression management strategies than men. Men are more willing to use self-promotion and self-enhancement strategies (Dubrin, 1994; Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett & Tedeschi, 1999), this means that they are emphasizing their best characteristics. Men also like to take responsibility for positive events; this is called acclaiming (Lee et al., 1999). While women are being more modest when they de-emphasize their best characteristics (Heatherington, Burns & Gustafson, 1998). Women are making more excuses (Konovsky & Jaster, 1989) and apologies (Lee et al., 1999) for actions than men do.
There are few gender differences in the use of job-focused impression management strategies (Singh et al., 2002). There is evidence that women are using preparation strategies more often than men, which means that women are preparing extremely well for meetings (Singh et al., 2002). Also, Singh et al. (2002) showed that men are more similar to each other in using job-focused strategies, while among women the differences are greater.
Other-focused impression management strategies are used more by men (Singh et al., 2002). Men think it is important to build a relationship with your supervisors (Singh et al., 2002). Networking with important people is a common strategy for men (Singh et al., 2002). In addition, men are doing a lot of ingratiation and favour-doing (Singh et al., 2002).
In summary, it seems to be that women are using other kind of impression
management strategies than men do. Men and women are both using job-focused impression management strategies, but there can be great differences in the use of self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies.
Hypothesis 1a: Men are using more self-focused impression management strategies than women do.
So far, no research has been done on the question how women could be encouraged to use more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies. Perhaps, women have too much confidence in promotional decisions being solely based on good performance. However, promotion decision process depends on more factors. More specific, it depends both on performance and non-performance, consisting of the following factors: exceptional performance (e.g. leadership abilities), reliable performance (e.g. doing a good job),
demographics (e.g. race or sex of the employee), and luck or favoritism (e.g. having friends and relatives higher up) (Beehr & Taber, 1993). According to Beehr and Taber (1993) the first two factors are based on performance, whereas the last two factors are non-performance based channels for moving up within an organization (Vardi, 1980). So both performance-based factors as non-performance-based factors are influencing the promotion process.
It may be helpful for women to try to understand how promotion decisions are being made and that women recognize that promotional decisions also depends on other factors than performance. Showing their commitment in a visible way is more than doing just a good job (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2001). Being aware of the existence of the non-performance-based factors mentioned above, may influence someone’s use of self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies. Perhaps women would use more of self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies if they recognize that promotional decisions are based on a lot more factors than performance alone. For men, this insight may not be necessary. As mentioned earlier, men have the personality to behave assertive and use self-focused and other-self-focused impression management strategies more often than women.
I therefore argue that women are using more self-focused and other-focused
unimportant. Men’s use of impression management strategies may not depend on perceptions about promotional decisions.
Hypothesis 2a: When women perceive that the promotion system is not based on performance factors, they use more self-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that promotion decisions are based on performance, while for men perceptions about the promotion system does not matter in using self-focused impression management strategies.
Hypothesis 2b: When women perceive that the promotion system is not based on performance factors, they use more other-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that promotion decisions are based on performance, while for men perceptions about the promotion system does not matter in using other-focused impression management strategies.
Hypothesis 3a: When women perceive that the promotion system is based on non-performance factors, they use more self-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that the promotion system is not based on non-performance factors, while for men perceptions about the promotion system does not matter in using self-focused impression management strategies.
Hypothesis 3b: When women perceive that the promotion system being based on non-performance factors, they use more other-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that the promotion system is not based on non-performance, while for men perceptions about the promotion system does not matter in using other-focused impression management strategies.
METHOD Design and Participants
In this research 116 people participated, 57 males and 59 females. Their age varied from 22 years old to 63 years old (Mage = 40 year, SDage = 10.40). The data were collected
within family, friends, and the acquaintances of the researcher and some of their colleagues. They worked in assurance companies, banks, car dealers, schools, and organizations like Centraal beheer, de Belastingdienst, and Ahold. The independent variables that were
measured in this research were gender and perceptions of promotion systems. The dependent variables that were measured were self-focused impression management strategies and other-focused impression management strategies.
Procedure
A questionnaire was administered to collect data for a research interested in gender differences in the use of impression management strategies. Respondents were assured of the confidentially of their responses. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Completion of the questionnaire took around 15 minutes. The questionnaire started with personal questions (e.g. gender and age) and questions about the situation at home (e.g. children, marital status). Followed by questions measuring perceptions of the promotion system. Then questions were asked that measured the use of impression management. At the end questions were asked about ambition and the situation at work (e.g. being a supervisor).
Measurement
Gender. Gender was coded as -1 = male and 1 = female.
Perceptions of promotion system. Perceptions of promotion systems was measured
Participants were presented several factors and indicated on a 5-point scale how important they think these factors are in getting a promotion or better job at the company they worked in (1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important). Beehr et al. (2004) distinguished two types of subscales on which promotion was based. Promotion based on performance,
consisting of ‘reliable performance’ (six items such as, doing a good job, good attendance etc.) and ‘exceptional performance’ (six items such as, unusually good work, leadership ability etc.). Together they formed perceptions about promotion based on performance (α = .83). Moreover, there was also promotion based on non-performance, consisting of
‘demographic’ (three items such as, race or sex of the employee) and ‘luck and favoritism’ (five items such as, likeability, getting the right breaks etc.). Together they formed
perceptions about promotion based on non-performance (α = .82). The reliability coefficients were from this study.
Impression management. The 21-question index of Singh et al. (2001) was used to
Control variables. Control variables used in this research were individual factors,
environmental factors, and ambition. Individual factor were age and children and both measured as a continuous variable. Environmental factors used as control variables was ‘being a supervisor’. Being a supervisor was measured dichotomous with -1 = yes and 1 = no. Career ambition was measured with a 6-item scale of Visser, van Ommeren, Kerckhaert, Coenen, and Engelen (2009). Participants indicated on a 5-point scale how important the items were in their career (1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important), items such as ‘building a reputation’ or ‘personal growth’.
Exploratory variables. Exploratory variables used in this research were the
importance of self-focused impression management strategies, the importance of other-focused impression management strategies, resistance against self-other-focused impression management strategies, and resistance against other-focused impression management
strategies. Importance of self-focused impression management strategies was measured with three of the nine items used by Singh et al. (2001) to measure the use of self-focused
key people above you and network with them’. Participants indicated on a 5-point scale if it was necessary to use the impression management strategies to get a promotion (1 =
RESULTS
After data collection, the analyses of the data were executed with SPSS. In advanced the data file was checked for ‘strange’ and missing values and on outliers. Missing values were excluded pair wise.
Factor analysis
A factor analysis in the form of Principle Components Analysis (PCA) was performed in order to determine the validity of the 20 items of perceptions about the promotion system were divided into performance factors and non-performance factors. According to Beehr et al. (2004) item 1 to 12 are performance-based factors and item 13 to 20 are based on
non-performance. Both the Kaiser’s criteria with the eigenvalue greater than one rule and the Scree test of Catell were used to determine the amount of components. Principal components analysis revealed the presence of five components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 23,0%, 20,3%, 8,0%, 6,6% and 5,4% of the variance respectively. However, an inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the second component. Components 1 and 2 captured much more of the variance (43,3%) than the remaining components. So, it was decided to retain two components for further investigation. In order to give meaning to the results the oblimin rotation was performed. The rotated solution revealed small differences from the distribution of the items to performance and non-performance from Beehr et al. (2004). Item 9 was not only loading on component 1 but was loading more on component 2. Therefore, item 9 was removed from the scale perceptions about promotion based on performance. Item 5 was not loading on component 1 and weakly loading on component 2. Item 5 was removed from the analysis because item 5 had a weak loading and was not explaining much of the variance. The results of the factor analysis are shown in table 1. Perception about promotion based on performance were formed by 10 items of Beehr et al. (2004) (α = .85).
Pearson correlation analysis (Table 2) was performed to test the multicollinearity. Multicollinearity exists when the independent variables are highly correlated (Pallant, 2007: 149). Gender and perceptions about promotion based on performance had no correlation (r = -.17). Gender and perceptions about promotion based on non-performance also had no
correlation (r = .06). Both correlations were less than .7 (at .7 the independent variables are too dependent from each other); therefore all variables will be retained (Pallant, 2007: 155).
Hypothesis testing
Using impression management strategies. Hypothesis 1a and 1b were about gender
difference in the use of impression management strategies. It was concluded that men are making more use of self-focused impression management (H1a) and other-focused impression management strategies (H1b) than women do. The relationship between gender and the use of impression management strategies was investigated using Pearson correlation analysis. There was no correlation between gender and the use of selffocused impression management, r = -.06, p = .56. Hypothesis 1a was not supported. There was no correlation between gender and the use of other-focused impression management, r = -.04, p = .70. Hypothesis 1b was not supported.
Promotion decision process. In order to test the effect of perceptions of promotion
strategies, after controlling for the influence of career ambition, age, children, and ‘being a supervisor’.
It was hypothesized that when women perceive that the promotion system is not based on performance factors, they use more self-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that promotion decisions are based on performance, while for men the promotion system does not matter in using self-focused impression management strategies (hypothesis 2a). The results of this hierarchical multiple regression were presented in Table 3. The Table showed a significant effect of ambition (B = .35, p < .01) and ‘being a supervisor’ (B = .11, p < .05) on self-focused impression management strategies in Step 1. Meaning that the higher one’s ambition is, the more they use self-focused impression management
strategies. For ‘being a supervisor’ this means that one is using more self-focused impression management strategies when he/she is a supervisor than when he/she is not. In Step 2, there was no main effect of gender and the perception that promotions are based on performance. There was also no effect of ‘being a supervisor’. In Step 3, the Table showed that there was a significant interaction between gender en the believe that promotion systems are based on performance (B = .22, p < .05; ΔR2 = .037 p < .05). This interaction was plotted in Figure 1.
The Figure shows no support for hypothesis 2a. Women are using more self-focused impression management strategies when they believe promotion is based on performance, while men use less self-focused impression management strategies. Hypothesis 2a could be rejected.
The Table shows that there was only a effect of the control variable ambition (B = .25, p < .01). Meaning that individuals with high ambition are using more other-focused impression management strategies than individuals with lower ambition. There was no main effect of gender and a marginal significant effect of the perception that promotions are based on performance (B = .10, p = .06). In Step 3, there was no significant effect of the interaction (B = .00, p = .98). Hypothesis 2b could be rejected.
It was hypothesized that when women perceive that the promotion system is based on non-performance-based factors, they use more self-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that the promotion system is not based on non-performance factors, while for men the promotion system does not matter in using self-focused impression management strategies (hypothesis 3a). The results of this hierarchical multiple regression were presented in Table 5. The Table shows that there was a effect of control variable ambition (B = .35, p <.01) and ‘being a supervisor’ (B = .19, p < .05 ) in Step 1. In Step 2, there was no main effect of the perception that promotions are based on non-performance (B = .04, p = .65). ‘Being a supervisor’ was in Step 2 and Step 3 not significant. There was also no effect of the interaction (B = -.06, p = .53) Hypothesis 3a was not supported.
It was hypothesized that when women perceive that the promotion system being based on non-performance-based factors, they use more other-focused impression management strategies than when women perceive that the promotion system is not based on non-performance, while for men the promotion system does not matter in using other-focused impression management strategies (hypothesis 3b). The results of this hierarchical multiple regression were presented in Table 6. The Table shows that there was only a effect of control variable ambition (B = .25, p <.01). There was no main effect of the perception that promotion is based on non-performance in Step 2 or the interaction (B = .12, p = .22) in Step 3.
Exploratory analysis
DISCUSSION
Despite the greater awareness of the strengths of women and the willingness of women, the percentage of women directors has not increased significantly over time (Oakley, 2000). In the current research it was tested to what extent the low number of women at the top of organizations has something to do with the use of impression management strategies. Are there any gender differences in the use of impression management strategies?
It was examined if there were any gender differences in the use of self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies. No gender differences were found in the use of these impression management strategies. This is not in line with prior research about the use of impression management strategies. Singh, Kumra, and Vinnicombe (2001) found that men were using more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies than women. The differences could lie in the method used in prior research. There was only a survey among managers and directors at the research of Singh, Kumra and Vinnicombe (2002). Sometimes, researchers only used students as respondents (Bolino and Turnley, 2003; Heatherington, Burns and Gustafson, 1998; Lee et. al., 1999), or employees of engineering companies (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2001). In the current research, however, respondents were individuals at all levels of the organizations with different job descriptions. Different groups of respondents could mean different outcomes. It could be possible that there are differences in the use of impression management strategies between different kind of jobs or
impression management strategies because organizations are more supportive in order to get more women at the top. Women could have made a fast progression in the use of impression management since 2007. If this is the case, the number of women at the top is not progressing as fast as the use of impression management strategies. However, the result may be that within years there are certainly more women at the top of organizations.
Aggressive women could be seen as violating the feminine gender role and therefore
aggressive women may be less likely to be successful in terms of promotion (Rudman, 1998). Not only the question whether men and women use impression management seems to be important, it also seems important how, when, by whom, and at whom the impression management strategies are used.
Furthermore, the relationship from gender and the use of impression management was also investigated with perceptions of promotion systems as moderator. With perceptions of promotion systems is meant whether employees believed in the promotion systems being based on performance or based on non-performance. It was examined whether women would use more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies when they perceived that promotion system is based on non-performance than women who perceived that promotion was not based on non-performance, while for men perceptions about the promotion system do not matter in the use of both impression management strategies. No evidence was found for this prediction. It was also examined whether women would use more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies when they perceive that promotions are not based on performance than women who perceive that promotions are based on performance, while for men perceptions about the promotion system do not matter in the use of both impression management strategies. No evidence was found for this prediction. However, evidence was found for the fact that men are using less self-focused impression management strategies when they perceive the promotion system is based on performance, while women are using more self-focused impression management strategies when they perceive that the promotion system is based on performance.
seems to be important for men. While women may think that self-focused impression
management strategies is more important because it is a way to make their performance more visible. This could be the case because women may be over think or are more doubters than men while men are thinking straightforward. When women over think, they analyze or think (too) much. When women believe that promotions are based on performance they know that doing a good job is important, but it is also important to make this performance visible. Using self-focused impression management strategies can be used to make your performance more visible. While men may think more straightforward and are using less self-focused impression management strategies when they believe that promotion decisions are based on performance so they can focus more on using job-focused impression management strategies. Because, job-focused impression management strategies can enhance actual performance. To conclude, women are focusing more on self-focused impression management strategies when they believe that promotion is based on performance. It could be the case that when organizations in reality also focus merely on performance in the promotion system, the strategy of women to use more self-focused impression management strategies is not very helpful.
the intensity, direction and the impact of impression management strategies. If women are not behind their own conduct, how then can supervisors believe these impression management strategies used by women?
Moreover, when people have the perception that promotion decisions are based on performance they felt less resistance against self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies than people who have the perception that promotion is not based on performance. It could be the case that there are cynical or pessimistic individuals at work who are believing that promotions are not based on performance. These individuals could have no confidence in anything the organization does, also in the promotion system. Cynical people may distrust organizations and thus will not see the usefulness of any impression management strategy. These individuals may even feel more resistance against using self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies because they only want to believe that doing a good job is important. Less resistance against impression management strategies when people believe promotion is based on performance could also explain why women are using more self-focused impression management strategies when they believe that promotion is based on performance, because then women are feeling less resistance against using self-focused impression management strategies.
Last, the more people believe that promotion is based on non-performance the more they think using self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies is
important in getting a promotion. This suggests that people realize that using self-focused and other-focused impression management is helping in getting a promotion. What then withholds women from using self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies when they perceive that promotions are based on non-performance? May be the resistance against self-focused and other-focused strategies are too high to actually use these strategies
Limitations
As all research, this research has limitations. The items that were measuring other-focused impression management strategies had not the recommended internal consistency. This could mean that the items were not measuring the same construct. The internal
consistency of items of other-focused impression management strategies is not so high and could affect the results. Moreover, this study contains self-report data and is subject to biases due to the nature of such data. Self-report data may have social desirability bias or is
influenced by how respondents feel by the moment. Last, performance and non-performance are two different constructs in this research. This can cause some confusion for readers, especially in the discussion. When there are perceptions that the promotion system is not based on performance does not necessarily mean that there are perceptions that promotion system is based on performance. It can be more clearly if performance and
non-performance is measured with the same construct, when the measures are low it means that people believe that promotion is based on non-performance and when it is high it means that people believe that promotion is based on performance.
Future research
more often. Also, greater effort could be made to use more objective measures instead of relying solely on self-reporting. For example, peer rating or multi-sourcing rating could be used to get a more reliable and valid assessment of behavior. Or ranking could be used, so people do not have the tendency to respond towards the middle.
Next, in the current research, people from different organizations were used. I can imagine that there could be impression management differences between organizations, for example profit organizations and non-profit organizations, organizations that have the policy of getting more women at the top or different sizes of organizations. The effect of impression management strategies could be greater for small organizations than in large organizations, because they are earlier noticed or there is a greater reach. On the other hand, there are more promotion opportunities in larger organizations because they are more hierarchical, but the closer you get at the top of the organization the harder it is to get a promotion. Different organizations could mean different use of impression management strategies, so it is interesting to investigate how people at different kind of organizations use impression management strategies. Moreover, when there are more women at the top of organizations, investigation could give insights about how women got there. Was it because women use different kind of impression management strategies or was it depending on totally different factors?
people accept credits for team successes, but would not take responsibilities for mistakes. Should organizations encourage impression management or not?
Practical implications
Women at the top of organizations are good for the financial performance of organizations and even for the economic prosperity of countries. How then should
organizations get more women at the top? First, it is advisable for organizations to verify how, when and by whom impression management strategies is used in organizations. The use of impression management has quite some influences on promotion and even other practices in the organization.
Moreover, it was found that women are not using more self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies when they believe that promotion systems are based on non-performance, while women see the importance of using these impression management strategies. It could be the case that women feel too much resistance against using self-focused and other-focused impression management strategies that women are not using more of these impression management strategies, despite the fact that women realize that the use of self-focused and other-self-focused strategies certainly helps in getting a promotion. So, organizations can take away these resistance against self-focused and other-focused strategies by
encouraging the use of impression management strategies. However, taking away resistance could be a long process with little impact. Therefore, organizations could easier change something in their self, for example the evaluation of the used impression management strategies by subordinates. Although no differences were found between men and women in the use of impression management strategies, there are some gender differences in the positions at the top of organizations. It had been argued that women use impression
impression management strategies from women and organizations should also evaluate the use of impression management different if they are used by women. This way, women may have more equal opportunities to reach the top of organizations as men.
All in all, organizations could always take a closer look at their current policy
REFERENCES
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. 2004. Gender diversity in the boardroom. ECGI Working
Papers in Finance.
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. 1998. Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual
Reviews Psychology, 49: 141-168.
Beehr, T. A., Nair, V. N., Gudanowski, D. M., & Such, M. 2004. Perceptions of reasons for promotion of self and others. Human Relations, 57(4): 413-438.
Beehr, T. A., & Taber, T. D. 1993. Perceived intra-organizational mobility: Reliable versus exceptional performance as means to getting ahead. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14(6): 579-594.
Bilimoria, D., & Huse, M. 1997. A qualitative comparison of the boardroom experiences of US and Norwegian women corporate directors. International Review of Women and
Leadership, 3(2): 63-73.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2003. More than one way to make an impression:
Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2): 141 160.
Budaev, S. V. 1999. Sex differences in the big five personality factors: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26: 801-813. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. 2003. Corporate governance, board
diversity, and firm value, Financial Review, 38: 33-53.
Dubrin, A. J. 1991. Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence. Psychological
Reports, 68: 635-646.
Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. 2001. The leadership styles of women and men.
Journal of Social Issues, 57(4): 781-797.
Elite Group 2010. Onderzoek vrouwen in topfuncties bedrijfsleven. Uden: Elite Group. Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. 2003. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11: 102 111.
Feldman, J. M. 1986. A note of the statistical correction of halo error. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71: 173-176.
Fields, M. A., & Keys, P. Y. 2003. The emergence of corporate governance from Wall Street to Main Street: Outside directors, board diversity, earnings management, and managerial incentives to bear risk. The Financial Review, 38: 1-24.
Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. 2004. Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2): 264-280.
Gersick, C. J. G., & Kram, K. E. 2002. High-achieving women at midlife: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(2): 104-127.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. 2007. Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56: 483-494.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. 1995. The new career contract: Developing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47: 269-289.
Huang, Q., & Sverke, M. 2007. Women’s occupational career patterns over 27 years: Relations to family of origin, life careers, and wellness. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70: 369-397.
Huse, M., & Solberg, A. G. 2006. Gender-related boardroom dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women in
Management Review, 21(2): 113-130.
Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. 1983. Performance appraisal: A process focus. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 5: 141-197.
Jacobsen, S. W., & Aaltio-Marjosola, I. 2001. ‘Strong’ objectivity and the use of Q methodology in cross-cultural research: Contextualizing the experience of women managers and their scripts of career. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(3): 228-248.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. 1982. Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives: 231-267. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Karsten, M. F. 1994. Management and gender: Issues and attitudes. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Kilduff, M., & Day, D. 1994. Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1047-1060.
Konovsky, M. A., & Jaster, F. 1989. “Blaming the victim” and other ways business man and women account for questionable behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 391-398. Lee, S. J., Quigley, B. M., Nesler, M. S., Corbett, A. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. 1999.
Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual
McDonald, P. K., Brown, K. A., & Bradley, L. M. 2005. Have traditional career paths given way to protean ones?: Evidence from senior managers in the Australian public sector.
Career Development International, 10(2): 109-129.
Mohammed, A. A., Gardner, W. L., & Paolillo, J. G. P. 1999. A taxonomy of organizational impression management tactics. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 7(1): 108 130.
Nielson, S., & Huse, M. 2010. The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2): 136 148.
Oakley, J. G. 2000. Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4): 321-335.
O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. 2008. Women’s career at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and Paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 727-743. Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS survival manual. Berkshire: Open University Press
Richardson, C. 1996. Snakes and ladders? The differing career patterns of male & females accountants. Women in Management Review, 11(4): 13-19.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacolone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. 1995. Impression management in
organizations: Theory, measurements, practice. London: Routledge.
Rudman, L. A. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal or Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(3): 629-645.
Sealy, R., Vinnicombe, S., & Singh, V. 2008. The female FTSE report 2008: A decade of
delay. Cranfield, UK: Cranfield School of Management.
Simpson, W. G., Carter, D. A., & D’Souza, F. 2010. What do we know about women on boards? Journal of Applied Finance, 2: 27-39.
Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. 2002. Gender and impression management: Playing the promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37: 77-89.
Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the
boardroom: How do women and men differ. European Management Journal, 26(1): 48-58.
Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. 2001. Impression management, commitment and gender: Managing other’ good opinions. European Management Journal, 19(2): 183-194. Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. 2004. Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms?
Evidence and theoretical explanations. Corporate Governance, 12(4): 479-488. Stephenson, C. 2004. Leveraging diversity to maximum advantage: The business case for
appointing more women to boards. Ivey Business Journal, 1-6.
Tedeschi, J. T. 1990. Self-presentation and social influence: An interactionist perspective. In M.J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication: 301-323. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matte.
Thompson, K. R., & Luthans, F. 1983. Behavioural interpretation of power. In R. W. Allen & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Organizational influences Processes. US: Scott Foresman and Co.
Vardi, Y. 1980. Organizational career mobility: An integrative model. Academic
Management Review, 5: 341-355.
De Visser, S., van Ommeren, M., Kerckhaert, A., Coenen, S., & Engelen, M. 2009. Ambitie
en (deeltijd)werk bij mannen en vrouwen. Paper presented at Taskforce DeeltijdPlus,
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. 1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 232-260. Wentling, R. 1992. Women in middle management: Their career development and
TABLE 1
Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with oblimin rotation of two factor solution of promotion items
Note. Major loadings for one component are bolded.
Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component
2
6. Having the right skills .775 -.213 .767 -.181 .633
7. Having good ideas and
initiative .728 .102 .732
.131 .546
10. Showing good judgment .698 -.188 .699 .062 .490
12. Unusually good work .698 .033 .693 .035 .480
4. Experience and ability .692 .006 .691 -.159 .512
11. Coming up with lots of ideas
.656 .131 .661 .158 .455
1.Doing a good job .627 -.200 .618 -.175 .423
3. Seniority .594 -.064 .591 -.039 .354
8. Leadership ability .546 .103 .551 .126 .314
2. Good attendance .508 .117 .513 .138 .276
19. Which formal group the employee is in -.123 .740 -.093 .735 .556 18. Having friends or relatives higher up -.177 .727 -.147 .720 .550
16. How well one’s supervisor like the employee -.210 .720 -.180 .711 .549 14. Sex of employee -.037 .710 -.008 .709 .503 20. Informal friendships with coworkers .191 .669 .219 .677 .495 13. Race of employee -.038 .667 -.010 .666 .444
9. Working long hours .372 .557 .395 .572 .466
17. Getting the right breaks .000 .514 .021 .514 .264
15. Educational level of employee
.003 .461 .022 .461 .213
5. Length of time since last promotion
TABLE 2
Summary of inter-correlations, means and standard deviations
TABLE 3
Results of hierarchical regression on gender and the promotion system based on performance
Self-focused impression management strategies
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
TABLE 4
Results of hierarchical regression on gender and the promotion system based on performance
Other-focused impression management strategies
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
TABLE 5
Results of hierarchical regression on gender and the promotion system based on non- performance
Self-focused impression management strategies
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
TABLE 6
Results of hierarchical regression on gender and the promotion system based on non-performance
Other-focused impression management strategies
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
FIGURE 1
Self-focused impression management as a function of gender and promotion based on performance
1 2 3 4 5 Low High Self -f o cu sed im p ress io n m an ag e m en t
Promotion system based on performance
