Perceptions of observed and model values of male and female managers

Abstract

Summary To provide evidence of the relationship between expectations for the values that should be exhibited for effective performance by female and male managers and their actual values, data were used that had been collected as part of a leadership program conducted for managers of business organizations in the United States. From a pool of approximately 700 managers, samples were drawn of 130 male and 130 female managers. As part of leadership program, the managers had completed 26-item SYMLOG value questionnaires, rating themselves and the values they judged to be effective for a manager. Prior to their participation in the program, sets of ratings were made by the coworkers of each manager, rating the actual values of the manager and the coworkers' ideal profile for the manager. The questionnaire covers three dimensions of values: dominant versus submissive, friendly versus unfriendly, and accepting the task-orientation of established authority versus opposing it. Comparisons were made of self and coworkers' ratings on the observed (self/actual) and model (effective/ideal) values of female and male managers with 'matched' samples that include only female and male managers with similar ratings of actual values, as judged by their coworkers, by removing the ratings of 'outliers'. The only significant difference in gender ratings that remains is that female managers rate themselves as more positive. There are more differences between observed and model ratings. Managers and their coworkers believe that model managers should be more dominant and friendly than they are rated to be. However the managers also believe that they should be more task-oriented while their coworkers believe that they should be less task-oriented. The majority of the female managers dropped from the matched sample because no matching male could be found were more dominant and positive and less taskoriented, thus closer to the stereotype role for females. ? 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.