Another ceiling? Can males compete for traditionally female jobs? - includes appendix

Journal of Management,  Sept-Oct, 1997  by Leanne E. Atwater,  David D. Van Fleet

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Regarding H3, there was no significant increase in the number of times the female applicant was selected for the Dean's job when the gender was known for both applicant and subordinates rather than for applicant only. In this case, 32 percent of the raters selected the female for the Dean's job. Thus, H3 was not supported. For the Coordinator's job, 24 percent selected the female when both the applicant's and the subordinates' genders were known (see Table 3), again not a significant difference from when only the applicant's gender was known. In both gender known and gender and subordinates known conditions, however, profemale bias existed - a significant proportion of the raters selected the female for a traditionally female job, even when she was less qualified than a male applicant?

While profemale bias was not more pronounced when the manager was supervising predominantly females, the comments that raters provided about why they selected their first choice applicant were more likely to indicate that the female was chosen because of her gender when the number of females to be supervised was given. When the gender of the applicant was unknown, the more qualified individual was almost always selected and reasons given for that selection never included attributions about gender. Overwhelmingly, leadership skills and/or ability and experience were given as the reasons for the selection. These were the factors we used to present the male as the more qualified applicant, thus supporting the validity of this manipulation. When gender was known, for the Dean's position, 16% of the reasons given by those who selected the female indicated that they did so specifically because of her gender. In the condition where subordinates' genders were known, 44% of the reasons given by those selecting the female indicated that they selected the female for the Dean's job because a female is more suited to supervise females. Statements made by respondents included "a female is better suited to supervise females," "a female might respond to employees better," and "supervising more females." When subordinates' genders were known, 40% of the reasons given by those selecting the female indicated that being female was their reason for selecting a female for the Coordinator's job. These comments provide additional support for our contention that raters were, in fact, selecting individuals for the job based on gender rather than qualifications, particularly where predominantly women would be supervised.

To test H4, we compared the selections made by subjects who currently held, or had held, a management position with those who had no management experience. In support of H4, a z-test of differences between proportions indicated that those who currently held or who had held a management position were more likely to select the less-qualified female for the Dean's job (61%) than were those who had not held a management position (39%) (p [less than] .05).(6) In this case, those with management experience were more likely to select the less-qualified female than those with no experience. There was not a significant difference in selection decisions as a function of management experience for the Coordinator's job.