Search

Presents a study that examined the intergender difference of morning passages to work among managers in Israel. Core roles of men and women; Methodology; Results of the study.

Investigates the role that experience with working women play in determining men managers' views of women managers. Attribution of causes for a woman manager's poor performance; Choices of response to such poor performance; Effects of experience with women managers as colleagues and with employed wives on the stability of men managers' casual attributions.

This study examined gender differences in self-confidence among working managers in two situations (work and social/family) as well as relationships between self-confidence, personal adjustment, and gender identity. Respondents were 437 women and men managers (208 men and 229 women) in southeast Florida. Although the sample was predominantly non-Hispanic white, an effort was made to include as many as possible Hispanic and black managers of both genders. Meaningful subgroup analysis was not possible, however, due to the small number of minority managers. Results showed that contrary to commonly held beliefs, the women and men managers were not significantly different in self-confidence in either situation, but both were higher in self-confidence at work than the same gender was in the social/family environment. Strong gender identity—either masculine or feminine—was associated with self-confidence at work for both genders, as was high personal adjustment. Implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do managers attribute the cause for a late and inaccurate proposal by a junior manager and how do they (the manager-respondents) think they would handle the problem? Previous research indicates that the attribution of cause for the poor performance is crucial to determining the response. However, gender may affect the attribution of cause, the interpretation of the circumstances, and the response chosen. In the present study, we assess the usefulness of an attribution model of leader behavior. We vary both the circumstances surrounding the poor performance and the gender of the putative junior manager. We are particularly concerned with the causal interpretation of conflicts between family and career responsibilities. We assess the effect of gender and situation on the attributional ratings given by experienced managers. We also investigate the effect of gender of the fictive junior manager and the structure of the causal interpretation of the respondents' choice of remedial action, on their estimates of the junior managers' job effectiveness, future success, and relationships with others in the organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies have indicated that people describe a ‘good manager’ in masculine terms. It was hypothesized that this could simply reflect cultural stereotypes, rather than people's perceptions of what combination of traits is desirable in a leader. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were presented managerial profiles ascribing all masculine, all feminine, or a combination of masculine and feminine traits (i.e., ‘androgynous’ profiles) to hypothetical managers. Feminine-trait combinations were rated as significantly less desirable than either masculine or androgynous combinations, which were rated as equally desirable. Thus, while femininity per se was not seen as desirable in a leader, it was not viewed as a liability when combined with masculinity, a corroboration of much behavioral research on androgyny. Experiment 3 varied trait likableness and sex-role orientation. Experiments 1 and 2 were replicated for unlikable traits. Surprisingly, the opposite pattern was obtained for likable traits. the feminine combinations were rated as the most desirable, and the masculine combinations were rated as the least desirable. The results are discussed in the context of early research on impression formation and recent work on social cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]