18
Journal of Vocational Behavior 32, 366-383 (1988) Employee Responses: Gender- or Job-Related Differences? FRANCIS J. YAMMARINO School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton AND ALAN J. DUBINSKY College of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri at Columbia Three alternative views for understanding work-related responses of employees were specified and tested relative to one another in this study. Person-centered (gender-related), situation-centered (job-related), and person-situation (joint gender- and job-related) explanations for employee responses were examined for females and males in two jobs. Multiple measures of each employee work-related response were used, and the effects of age, education, and tenure on the job were controlled in two samples. Results from two-way MANCOVAs indicate that differences in employee responses about job characteristics and commitment are job-related (situation-centered); those about involvement are both job- and gender-related (situation- and person-centered); those about role stress are jointly gender- and job-related (person-situation); and those about performance are gender-related (person-centered). Q 1988 Academic Press, Inc. The literature on women in management has been dominated by two competing explanatory frameworks (see Fagenson & Horowitz, 1985; Riger & Galligan, 1980).The historically older approach-person-centered perspectiveposits that personal characteristics, especially gender-related differences, explain behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions in organizations. An alternative approach-situation-centered perspective-suggests that situationally relevant factors, especially job- or position-related differences, account for attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors in the work environment. More recently, a third alternative-person-situation perspective-has been proposed suggesting that attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions in work settings are understood by jointly considering employee characteristics The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this manuscript. Alan J. Dubinsky is now at: College of Business, St. Cloud State University. Correspondence about this article and requests for reprints should be sent to Francis J. Yammarino, School of Management, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13901. 366 0001~8791/88 $3.00 Copyright 0 1988 by Academic Press, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

Journal of Vocational Behavior 32, 366-383 (1988)

Employee Responses: Gender- or Job-Related Differences?

FRANCIS J. YAMMARINO

School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton

AND

ALAN J. DUBINSKY

College of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri at Columbia

Three alternative views for understanding work-related responses of employees were specified and tested relative to one another in this study. Person-centered (gender-related), situation-centered (job-related), and person-situation (joint gender- and job-related) explanations for employee responses were examined for females and males in two jobs. Multiple measures of each employee work-related response were used, and the effects of age, education, and tenure on the job were controlled in two samples. Results from two-way MANCOVAs indicate that differences in employee responses about job characteristics and commitment are job-related (situation-centered); those about involvement are both job- and gender-related (situation- and person-centered); those about role stress are jointly gender- and job-related (person-situation); and those about performance are gender-related (person-centered). Q 1988 Academic Press, Inc.

The literature on women in management has been dominated by two competing explanatory frameworks (see Fagenson & Horowitz, 1985; Riger & Galligan, 1980). The historically older approach-person-centered perspectiveposits that personal characteristics, especially gender-related differences, explain behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions in organizations. An alternative approach-situation-centered perspective-suggests that situationally relevant factors, especially job- or position-related differences, account for attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors in the work environment. More recently, a third alternative-person-situation perspective-has been proposed suggesting that attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions in work settings are understood by jointly considering employee characteristics

The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this manuscript. Alan J. Dubinsky is now at: College of Business, St. Cloud State University. Correspondence about this article and requests for reprints should be sent to Francis J. Yammarino, School of Management, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13901.

366 0001~8791/88 $3.00 Copyright 0 1988 by Academic Press, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Page 2: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 367

and the nature of the job, as well as other factors such as organizational structure and the external environment (see Fagenson, 1986).

With few exceptions, prior research has not empirically examined these three alternative approaches relative to one another. Moreover, in studies that have tested more than one alternative framework concurrently, various limitations are present. The purpose of the present study was to (1) test the ability of these three competing frameworks to explain differences in several work-related responses of employees, and (2) attempt to address some limitations of previous research. Specifically, by examining three alternative approaches concurrently, each is pitted against the other to provide a more rigorous test of their explanatory abilities. Thus, stronger inferences are possible because alternative views (competing explanations) about work-related responses are not examined in isolation, but rather are tested simultaneously.

Researchers in a variety of disciplines have conducted numerous studies concerning work-related responses (attitudes, perceptions, behaviors) of employees. Key among these responses are job characteristics (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1976), employee role stress (e.g., Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), employee involvement and commitment (e.g., Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972), and job performance (e.g., Landy & Fan-, 1983). These five employee responses were chosen for examination in the present work based on three criteria. First, the work-related responses needed to have been investigated in previous research and to be usable in multiple samples to satisfy concerns about validity and replication. Second, the responses needed to be reportable by individuals in different jobs to allow for the possibility of contrasting effects in different positions. Third, the responses needed the potential to display differences in terms of the three alternative perspectives of interest in this study. Thus, the focus of this investigation is whether persons (gender-related differences), sit- uations (job-related differences), or persons-situations (joint gender- and job-related differences) “organize” (see Rowe, 1987) employee responses concerning job characteristics, role stress, involvement, commitment, and job performance.

The person-centered perspective (Fagenson, 1986; Fagenson & Horowitz, 1985; Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Riger & Galligan, 1980) espouses that differences in employee work-related responses are attributable to factors that are internal to women as compared to men. Theorists with this view assert that as a result of contrasting biological characteristics and/or socialization patterns, women have behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions which differ from men. In brief, the position of this school of thought is that employees’ work-related behaviors and attitudes can be understood in terms of gender-related differences.

Considerable research in psychology, management, and biology has examined the person-centered perspective (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987;

Page 3: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

368 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

Deaux, 1984; Fausto-Sterling, 1986; Nieva & Gutek, 1981). Results have been somewhat mixed, at times failing to account for significant variance based on gender, and are subject to methodological problems (Fausto- Sterling, 1986; McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986; Riger & Galligan, 1980). At the extreme, Fausto-Sterling (1986) states that obvious distinctions between women and men (e.g., sex organs, hormone levels, stature) are trivial, and claims of differences in other areas (e.g., modes of reasoning, intelligence, emotional dispositions) are unsupported.

Nevertheless, there tends to be an emphasis in the literature implying that gender-related differences are more frequent, interesting, and important than similarities between women and men (see McHugh et al., 1986). Moreover, McHugh et al. (1986) indicate that results of studies displaying alleged gender-related differences are often published without having been replicated or are serendipitous and tend not to be predicted by, nor grounded in, theoretical formulations. Perhaps a key limitation of studies conducted from the person-centered perspective, however, is their failure to test competing explanatory frameworks in the research (Fagenson, 1986; Fausto-Sterling, 1986; McHugh et al., 1986; Riger & Galligan, 1980).

As one alternative to this approach, the situation-centered perspective (Fagenson, 1986; Fagenson & Horowitz, 1985; Kanter, 1977; Riger & Galligan, 1980) suggests that differences in employee work-related responses are attributable to factors in the job situation or work environment. Theorists with this view assert that as a result of contrasting job situations (e.g., advantageous versus disadvantageous) or positions (e.g., higher versus lower level), employees have attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors which differ across jobs. In brief, the position of this school of thought is that employees’ work-related behaviors and attitudes can be understood in terms of job- or position-related differences.

Research in support of the situation-centered perspective reveals that men as compared to women tend to occupy more advantageous, higher- level positions. Placement in these positions, rather than differences in gender, results in employees displaying particular behaviors and attitudes (Fagenson, 1986; Kanter, 1977; Riger & Galligan, 1980). The situation- centered perspective posits that employees in the same job, regardless of gender, may have similar attitudes and behaviors, but these would differ from the attitudes and behaviors of employees (both females and males) in other jobs. Although some previously cited research supports this situation-centered perspective, many of the studies are subject to methodological problems or have failed to test job-related, gender-related, and joint explanations simultaneously (see Fausto-Sterling, 1986; McHugh et al., 1986; Riger & Galligan, 1980).

A third explanatory framework is the person-situation perspective (Fagenson & Horowitz, 1985; Martin, Harrison, & Dinitto, 1983; Riger

Page 4: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 369

& Galligan, 1980). To label this perspective “interaction&” seems in- appropriate because that term has several meanings (Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981), and this perspective has not developed to the point where continuous and reciprocal influences between persons and situations over time (“transactional interactionism”) are discussed (see Rowe, 1987; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). Specifically, processes by which particular personal attributes and particular situational attributes in natural interaction over time yield particular employee behaviors and attitudes have not been specified (see Schneider, 1983). Rather, for the purpose of this study, a more modest view of nonadditive (joint) effects of persons and situations has, been adopted to describe the perspective; thus, the name “person-situation” rather than “interactionist” is used.

Specifically, the person-situation perspective posits that differences in employee work-related responses are attributable jointly to personal (internal)-situational (external) factors. Theorists with this view assert that as a result of contrasting personal characteristics in conjunction with work environments, employees have different behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions. In brief, the position of this school of thought is that ditferences in employees’ work-related behaviors and attitudes can be understood by jointly considering individuals’ gender and job or position; that is, positing a nonadditive explanation of employee responses.

In particular, the person-situation perspective proposes that (a) attitudes and behaviors of women and men in one job (e.g., advantageous) will differ, (b) attitudes and behaviors of women and men in another job (e.g., disadvantageous) will differ, and (c) attitudes and behaviors of women and men will differ across jobs (e.g., advantageous and disad- vantageous). Although these assertions about joint (nonadditive) job- gender effects are plausible, with few exceptions, empirical tests are lacking (see Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981).

In summary, the research question of interest in this study was to determine which variables influence whether employee responses are (1) gender-related (person-centered perspective), (2) job-related (situation- centered perspective), or (3) jointly gender- and job-related (person- situation perspective).

METHOD

Samples Insurance and retail sales personnel constituted the two samples. The

samples were chosen because they provided an opportunity to test the alternative perspectives of interest. Specifically, the samples (n = 199) consisted of females (n = 102) and males (n = 97) in two jobs, thus allowing for potential variation in employee work-related responses based on their gender, job, or gender-job. In this way, any one of the three

Page 5: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

370 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

alternative perspectives could be identified as the more likely given the data.

The insurance sample was obtained by soliciting cooperation from the management of 25 insurance organizations with branch offices located in a major metropolitan area in the Southeast. All sales personnel (n = 116) had the job title “independent agent.” The retail sample was obtained by requesting participation from the president of a chain of specialty stores with 24 outlets located in a southeastern state. All salespeople (n = 83) had the job title “sales associate.”

In comparison to the job of sales associate, the job of independent agent can be viewed as more advantageous and professional (e.g., Comer & Dubinsky, 1985). Sales associates tend to work in closer proximity to their managers, perform relatively perfunctory routine tasks, and sell noncomplex products. Independent agents often work at a distance from their managers, perform a variety of nonroutine activities, and sell services that require extensive product knowledge and creative selling skills.

In the insurance sample, 77% of the independent agents (89) were males. This statistic is representative of the insurance sales industry (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985, p. 402) which tends to be dominated by men (i.e., male-dominated job). The median age of the independent agents was 33.9 years (range = 18 to 61 years); median job tenure was 2.6 years (range = 1 to 33 years). Forty-seven percent had earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

In the retail sample, 90% of the sales associates (75) were females. This statistic is representative of the retail sales industry (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985, p. 402) which tends to be dominated by women (i.e., female-dominated job). The median age of the sales associates was 24.0 years (range = 18 to 66 years); median job tenure was 1.2 years (range = 1 to 10 years). Six percent had earned a college degree.

Measures

Data were obtained using questionnaires completed by salespersons (independent agents and sales associates) and their immediate sales man- agers (supervisors). An identical set of measures of the five employee responses was employed in both samples (i.e., for sales associates and independent agents). Scale scores were formed by summing (totaling) responses from multiple-item measures, while responses from single-item measures were used directly.

Job characteristics. Five measures of job characteristics were used. Latitude was assessed by asking salespersons whether their supervisor would let them implement five kinds of minor changes on their jobs (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Reliabilities (coefficient a) for this scale in the retail and insurance samples were .84 and .87, respectively. Autonomy was assessed using two items adapted from Bell (1965) that

Page 6: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 371

asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they could make their own job-related decisions (a = .66 and .71, respectively). A one-item measure was used to assess variety (Bell, 1965). Employees indicated the percentage of their activities that were repetitive or routine. To assess external control, a three-item scale adapted from the work of Bell (1965) was used. Respondents indicated the extent to which their jobs were controlled by rules and regulations (a = 60 and .74, respectively). A one-item measure was used to assess supervisor control (Bell, 1965). Salespersons indicated the percentage of their activities that were de- termined or influenced by their supervisor.

Role stress. Two measures of role stress were used. Role ambiguity was assessed using a six-item scale developed by Rizzo et al. (1970). Respondents indicated, for example, the extent to which they feel certain about how much authority they have, on a seven-point format that ranged from “very false for me” to “very true for me” (a = .78 and .71, respectively). Role problems were identified by salespersons using a five- item scale adapted from Dansereau et al. (1975). Respondents indicated, for example, the extent to which strains in the working relationships with their store managers were a problem, on a four-point format that ranged from “a large problem” to “no problem” (a = .86 and .74, respectively).

Involvement. Two measures of involvement in the job were used. Job involvement was measured with a four-item scale developed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Respondents indicated, for example, the extent to which they were involved personally in their work, on a six-point format that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (both (Y’S = .83). A four-item scale from Hackman and Oldham (1976) was used to assess salesperson internal work motivation. Respondents indicated, for example, the extent to which their feelings were affected greatly by how well they did their job, on a six-point format that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (a = .84 and .74, respectively). This index was included as a measure of involvement because the items deal with the influence of an individual’s job on his/her personal feelings vis-a-vis the job.

Commitment. Two measures of commitment to the organization were used. A four-item scale developed by Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) was used to measure organizational commitment. Respondents indicated, for example, whether they would leave their organization for slightly more status, on a three-point format that varied from “no, definitely would not leave,” to “yes, definitely would leave” (a = .74 and &I, respectively). Propensity to leave was assessed using one item in which respondents were asked if they were free to choose, whether they would continue working for their company (Donnelly & Ivancevich, 1975).

Performance. Four perceptual measures of salesperson performance

Page 7: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

372 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

were used. Two measures were obtained from salespersons; two, from their supervisors. Satisfaction with performance was assessed by asking salespersons how satisfied they thought their supervisor was with their job performance (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984). Another single item measure--job congruence (Dansereau et al., 1984)-asked sales- persons about the degree to which they thought they performed their job congruently with their supervisor’s preferences.

Sales supervisors were asked similar questions to provide a check on (1) salespersons’ self-ratings of performance, and (2) on potential gender- related bias in the supervisor ratings (i.e., whether supervisors rate males higher than females). Specifically, supervisors were asked how satisfied they were with the performance of each of their salespersons (Dansereau et al., 1984)-satisfaction with performance (supervisor). Supervisors also identified the degree to which each salesperson performed his or her job congruently with the supervisor’s preferences (Dansereau et al., 1984Gjob congruence (supervisor).

Data Analysis

To test the person-centered, situation-centered, and person-situation explanations concurrently for the variables of interest, data were analyzed in two phases. First, a two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MAN- OVA) was used to assess each employee response. A multivariate pro- cedure was chosen because each employee work-related response was assessed by multiple measures that were related. Specifically, the average correlation among the five measures of job characteristics was .37; for the two measures of role stress, .48; for the two measures of involvement, .41; for the two measures of commitment, SO; for the four measures of performance, SO. All correlations were statistically significant (p < .OOl , 12 = 199) and of sufficient magnitude to justify the use of multivariate procedures (see Finn, 1974). These procedures can also prevent potential false interpretations that can result when only univariate procedures and single measures are used (Finn, 1974; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). More- over, a 2 x 2 factorial design was employed because each factor-gender (female-male) and job (sales associate-independent agentehad two levels.

A significant main effect for “gender” on an employee work-related response was interpreted as providing support for the person-centered perspective. Likewise, support for the situation-centered perspective was inferred when a significant main effect for “job” was obtained on an employee response. Following the recommendation of Finn (1974), when a significant interaction term was obtained on an employee work-related response, main effects were not interpreted, and support for the person- situation perspective was inferred. Interpreting a significant interaction term as supportive of the person-situation perspective is appropriate

Page 8: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 373

given the previously described specification of that perspective in this study (see Rowe, 1987; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981).

In a second phase, data were analyzed using a two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) for each employee response. Three covariates--age (in years), education (five-point scale ranging from high school to graduate degree), and job tenure (in years)-were added to the analysis for several reasons. First, previous research indicates that age, education, and job tenure, separately and often jointly, are associated with or moderate the employee work-related responses of interest in this study (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Comer & Dubinsky, 1985; Nieva & Gutek, 1981; Schneider, 1983). Second, sales associates (M = 1.46) had significantly lower educational levels than independent agents (M = 2.70) (Fww = 42.27, p < .OOl, 77 = .39). Third, females (M = 2.03) had significantly less job tenure than males (M = 6.04) (F1,197 = 6.03, p < .05, v = .16). Fourth, age and job tenure were significantly related (r = .53, p < .OOl, n = 199); as a set that included education, the three covariates were positively associated (P = .25, p < .OOl, n = 199).

Therefore, to provide a more rigorous test of the three alternative perspectives, the potential effects of age, education, and job tenure on the hypotheses of interest were controlled by MANCOVA procedures. In addition, compatible with the recommendations of Fausto-Sterling (1986), McHugh et al. (1986), and Riger and Galligan (1980), multivariate and univariate r) values were computed for the main effects and interactions according to procedures described by Dansereau et al. (1984) and Ta- bachnick and Fidell(l983) as indicators of percentage of variance explained (magnitude of effects) by each perspective.

RESULTS

The findings for this study are summarized in Tables 1 to 3. Group means and standard deviations for the multiple measures of employee responses and covariates for females and males employed as sales associates and independent agents are presented in Table 1. Two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and covariance (MANCOVA) results- degrees of freedom (dfl, multivariate F values, and etas ($-are presented in Table 2. The corresponding two-way univariate analysis of covariance results-univariate F values and q-are shown in Table 3. The univariate results are not interpreted independent of the multivariate results; in fact, they are interpreted only when multivariate results are significant and only serve as a guide with tentative interpretations to the overall effect (Finn, 1974; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).

Job Characteristics A significant main effect for job was obtained for job characteristics

both before (MANOVA) and after (MANCOVA) controlling the covariates.

Page 9: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

TABL

E 1

Gro

up M

eans

and

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

fo

r Va

riabl

es

Sale

s as

soci

ates

In

depe

nden

t ag

ents

Mal

es

Fem

ales

M

ales

Fe

mal

es

(n =

8)

(n

=

75)

(n =

89

) (n

=

27)

Varia

bles

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

13.6

3 2.

67

14.4

5 3.

04

16.5

8 2.

68

16.6

3 3.

04

4.25

.7

1 4.

21

1.59

3.

33

1.18

3.

59

1.78

4.

13

.83

4.28

.7

1 3.

30

1.06

3.

22

1.09

11

.00

2.33

12

.39

1.87

9.

74

2.83

9.

78

3.07

3.

25

1.39

3.

45

1.09

1.

76

.93

1.93

1.

00

32.7

5 8.

65

36.5

3 4.

77

36.4

0 3.

79

35.5

2 5.

85

16.0

0 4.

04

17.8

3 3.

07

17.7

8 2.

35

16.7

4 3.

16

10.8

8 3.

64

17.8

8 4.

76

6.88

1.

55

3.63

1.

06

14.0

4 4.

07

16.1

2 4.

07

16.2

2 4.

93

20.3

2 3.

32

20.4

7 2.

90

21.3

0 2.

64

6.24

2.

07

4.63

1.

18

5.59

2.

14

4.19

.8

0 4.

52

.76

4.33

1.

00

4.38

.5

2 4.

32

A0

4.04

.8

2 3.

81

.%

5.13

.8

3 5.

56

.68

4.71

.9

4 5.

04

.94

4.50

.5

3 4.

23

.89

3.75

1.

00

3.74

1.

20

5.25

.8

9 5.

21

1.00

4.

60

1.13

4.

56

1.37

27.2

5 10

.11

30.1

7 13

.42

37.5

5 9.

66

31.6

3 8.

16

1.75

.7

1 1.

43

.64

2.69

1.

12

2.74

1.

23

1.38

1.

06

1.76

1.

52

6.46

8.

06

2.78

3.

70

Job

char

acte

ristic

s La

titud

e Au

tono

my

Varie

ty”

Exte

rnal

co

ntro

l Su

perv

isor

con

trol

Rol

e st

ress

R

ole

ambi

guity

” R

ole

prob

lem

s”

Invo

lvem

ent

Job

invo

lvem

ent

Wor

k m

otiv

atio

n C

omm

itmen

t O

rgan

izat

ion

com

mitm

ent”

Prop

enis

ty t

o le

ave

Perfo

rman

ce

Sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith p

erfo

rman

ce

Job

cong

ruen

ce

Sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

perfo

rman

ce (

supe

rvis

or)

Job

cong

ruen

ce (

supe

rvis

or)

Cov

aria

tes

Age

Educ

atio

n Jo

b te

nure

a Lo

wer

sco

res

indi

cate

hig

her

valu

es.

Page 10: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

Varia

bles

TABL

E 2

Mul

tivar

iate

An

alys

is

of V

aria

nce

and

Cov

aria

nce

Res

ults

Cov

aria

tes

Job

Gen

der

Job

x G

ende

r

df

F df

17

F

9 F

71

F

Job

char

acte

ristic

s M

ANO

VA

MAN

CO

VA

Rol

e st

ress

M

ANO

VA

MAN

CO

VA

Invo

lvem

ent

MAN

OVA

M

ANC

OVA

C

omm

itmen

t M

ANO

VA

MAN

CO

VA

Perfo

rman

ce

MAN

OVA

M

ANC

OVA

- -

5191

15

,519

I .

98*

5188

- -

2194

6,

382

.95

2191

- -

2194

6,

382

1.44

21

91

- -

2194

6.

382

1.52

21

91

- -

4192

12

,500

1.

68

4189

.50

.43

.09

.83

.lO

.13

1.65

.lO

.29

9.07

***

.27

7.75

***

.28

8.40

***

.28

8.13

***

.25

3.16

* .2

1 2.

30

.lO

.47

.20

2.05

.2

3 2.

66*

.08

.30

12.5

5***

.1

3 8.

43**

* .I2

.18

.18

.I1

.lO

.64

.12

.55

.50

.12

.56

E ;F!

1.00

.1

9 3.

65*

s .9

3 .1

9 3.

39*

ii F 3.

37s

.13

1.61

Ii

3.34

* .I1

1.

08

$ 1.

10

.18

3.10

* 1.

05

.15

2.15

8

* p

< .0

5.

**

p <

.Ol.

***

p <

.ool

.

Page 11: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

376 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

TABLE 3 Univariate Results Controlling for Covariates

Variables

Job characteristics Latitude Autonomy Variety External control Supervisor control

Role stress Role ambiguity Role problems

Involvement Job involvement Work motivation

Commitment Organizational

commitment Propensity to leave

Performance Satisfaction with

performance Job congruence Satisfaction with perfor-

mance (supervisor) Job congruence

(supervisor)

Job Gender Job x Gender

7)

.23 11.12*** .06 .72

.13 3.16 .02 .05

.27 15.22*** .02 .04

.13 3.06 .07 .92

.36 27.71*** .05 .47

.12 2.96 .lO 1.84

.09 1.72 .03 .22

.26 13.85***

.18 6.79**

.26 13.63*** .03 .13

.22 9.57** .08 1.22

.I3

.19

.13

.lO

3.36 7.01*

3.10

2.66

7) F

.13 3.28

.17 5.72*

.07 1.04

.15 4.51*

.07 .86

.03 .14

7) F

.05 .50

.04 .31

.03 .12

.08 1.38

.02 .06

.15 4.53*

.16 5.36*

.I0 1.98

.07 .85

.13 3.20

.12 3.01

.04 .25

.oo .oo

.03 .18

.oo .oo

Note. F tests df are 1192. * p < .05.

** p < .Ol. *** p < .OOl.

As a set, the covariates were significantly related to job characteristics (Fwv = 1.98, p < .05). Multivariate values (F5,188 = 8.43, p < .OOl; q = .43), after eliminating the effects of the covariates, indicated that employee responses about job characteristics display significant job-related differences, and the percentage of variance explained was over 18%. The univariate results indicate that three of the five job characteristic measures (latitude, variety, and supervisory control) also display sign&ant job-related differences. The r) values for these three indicators range from .23 to .36, and the percentage of variance explained was between 5 and 13%. Independent agents had greater latitude, more variety, and were controlled less by their supervisors than sales associates. Overall, the analyses of job characteristics supported the situation-centered explanation.

Page 12: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 377

Role Stress

A significant interaction term (with neither main effect significant) was obtained for role stress both before and after controlling the covariates. The covariates as a set were not related to role stress. Multivariate values (Fz,w, = 3.39, p < .05; r) = .19), after eliminating the effects of the covariates, indicated that employee responses about role stress displayed significant joint job- and gender-related differences, and the percentage of variance explained was 4%. The univariate results indicate that both role stress measures (role ambiguity and role problems) also displayed significant joint job- and gender-related differences. The r) values for these two indicators were .15 and .16, and the percentages of variance explained were approximately 2 and 3%. Male sales associates reported the highest levels of ambiguity and the most role problems, while female sales associates had the lowest levels of ambiguity and fewest role problems. Overall, the analyses of role stress supported the person-situation explanation.

Involvement

Signihcant main effects for job and gender were obtained for involvement both before and after controlling the coveriates. The covariates as a set were not related to involvement. Multivariate values (F2,191 = 7.75, p < .OOl; n = .27), after eliminating the effects of the covariates, indicated that employee responses about involvement displayed significant job- related differences, and the percentage of variance explained was 7%. Employee responses about involvement also displayed significant gender- related differences (F2,,9, = 3.34, p < .05; n = .18), but even less variance was explained (3%) by this factor. The univariate results also indicate separate job- and gender-related differences. Both involvement measures (job involvement and work motivation) displayed significant job-related differences with q values of .26 and .18 (7 and 3% of variance explained), while only work motivation displayed gender-related differences with an n value of .17 (3% of variance explained). Independent agents reported more involvement in their job and greater work motivation than sales associates; females reported greater work motivation than males. Overall, the analyses of involvement provided some support for both the situation-centered and person-centered explanations, but the effect of the situation seems stronger than the effect of gender.

Commitment

Before controlling the covariates, a significant main effect for job and a significant interaction term were obtained for commitment. Although the covariates as a set were not related to commitment, after eliminating their effects, multivariate values (F2,191 = 8.13, p < .OOl; r) = .28) indicated that employee responses about commitment only displayed

Page 13: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

378 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

significant job-related differences (8% of the variance explained). The univariate results indicate that both commitment measures (organizational commitment and propensity to leave) also displayed sign&ant job-related differences. The 7 values for these two indicators were .26 and .22, and the percentages of variance explained were about 7 and 5%. Independent agents reported higher levels of organizational commitment and less of a propensity to leave than sales associates. Overall, the analyses of commitment supported the situation-centered explanation.

Performance

Before controlling the covariates, a significant main effect for job was obtained for performance. Although the covariates as a set were not related to performance, after eliminating their effects, multivariate values Wiw = 2.66, p < .05; r] = .23) indicated that employee perceptions about performance displayed significant gender-related, not job-related, differences (5% of the variance explained). The univariate results indicate that only one of the four performance measures (job congruence) also displayed significant gender-related differences. The r) values for this indicator and the percentage of variance explained were .15 and 2%, respectively. Females reported higher levels of job congruence than males. Because the univariate results based on supervisors’ reports of satisfaction with performance and job congruence did not display any statistically significant effects, a gender-related bias in supervisor ratings is not in- dicated. Overall, the analyses of performance provide some support for the person-centered explanation.

DISCUSSION

This study tested the explanatory ability of three competing frameworks- person-centered, situation-centered, and person-situation-to account for differences in work-related responses of employees. After controlling age, education, and job tenure effects, differences in employee responses about job characteristics and commitment were better explained by the situation-centered perspective-job-related differences. After controlling the three covariates, differences in employee responses about involvement were explained by both the situation- and person-centered perspectives- job- and gender-related differences; the effect of the situation, however, seems stronger than the effect of gender. Differences in employee responses about performance perceptions were better understood in terms of the person-centered perspectivegender-related differences-after eliminating the effects of age, education, and job tenure. After controlling the three covariates, differences in employee responses about role stress were better explained by the person-situation perspective-joint job- and gender- related differences. Overall results, therefore, provide the strongest support for the situation-centered perspective. Differences in work-related re-

Page 14: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 379

37 % C

,g 36

f a 35 P p 34

5 f 33

:

Sales Associates

Independent Agents

. Females

o Males

Sales Associates

Independent Agents

Jobs

FIG. 1. Mean role stress (lower scores indicate higher levels of ambiguity and more problems) based jointly on jobs and gender.

sponses of employees in this study were primarily, although not totally, job-related.

Results of analyses of employee responses about job characteristics, involvement, and commitment indicate that independent agents (1) had greater latitude, variety, and control on theirjobs, (2) were more involved and motivated at work, and (3) were more committed and less likely to leave their organization than sales associates. A potential explanation for these results may be the more advantageous and professional nature of the independent agent job in comparison to the job of sales associates (e.g., Comer & Dubinsky, 1985). The more distant location of sales managers, as well as the selling of services that require greater knowledge and creativity, may account for the more “positive” job-based responses of independent agents, regardless of their gender. In contrast, closely supervised sales associates selling noncomplex products, whether males or females, may have more “negative” responses in reaction to a relatively disadvantageous job.

Results of analyses of employee responses about role stress yielded significant multivariate and univariate interaction terms; that is, joint job- and gender-related differences. As shown in Fig. 1, male sales associates reported the most role problems and the highest levels of ambiguity.

Page 15: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

380 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

(Lower scores indicate higher levels of role ambiguity and more role problems.) In contrast to previous research that supports a “double negative” condition-females in a disadvantageous job or lower-level position-males in the disadvantageous job in this study reported the most negative employee reactions. Perhaps being a “token’‘-a male in a female-dominated job-contributed to these results. (Another potential explanation is a possible restriction of range in the responses because only eight male sales associates were included in this study.)

As also shown in the figure, the other potential “token” case-a female in the male-dominated job of independent agent-displayed a similar result; i.e., female independent agents reported higher levels of role stress than their male counterparts, and the second highest levels of stress of the four groups. In contrast, female sales associates and male independent agents-females in a female-dominated job and males in a male-dominated job, respectively-reported the lowest and second lowest levels of role stress. This overall pattern of results suggests that being a token, whether female or male, places an employee in a stressful situation but has less of an influence on other employee work-related responses.

Multivariate analyses of employee responses about involvement and performance indicate that gender-related differences were present. Although males and females did not differ in terms of job involvement based on the univariate results, females reported greater work motivation than males. This univariate effect, however, was weak (q = .17; less than 3% explained variance). In addition, females and sales supervisors of females reported higher levels of satisfaction with performance and job congruence than males and sales supervisors of males. The patterns of the self- and supervisor ratings are similar, with the self-ratings slightly higher than the supervisor ratings (c.f., Landy & Farr, 1983). In contrast to some previous research, there appears, based on the multivariate results, to be a bias in supervisors ratings that isfavorable toward females as compared to males. Examination of the univariate results, however, indicates that neither supervisor rating of performance displayed a gender- related effect. Despite overall (multivariate) gender-related differences for performance, only self-ratings of job congruence displayed significant gender-related differences based on univariate analyses, and this effect was weak (7 = .15; 2% explained variance). Perhaps these differences were a result of using measures of performance perceptions (judgments) rather than rating of actual performance (i.e., nonjudgmental measures) such as sales revenue generated.

In general, because the majority of employee work-related responses (based on both multivariate and univariate analyses) displayed job-related differences, the results are more compatible with the situation-centered perspective. Moreover, by specifying and testing this perspective relative to the others, implicit assumptions in the literature on work-related attitudes

Page 16: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 381

and perceptions have been made explicit and clarified (see Schneider, 1983). Compatible with the literature on vocational choice (e.g., Holland, 1973, 1976), males and females are relatively similar in terms of the employee responses in this study and apparently select themselves into job situations and select themselves out if they are dissimilar (Schneider, 1983). Thus, employees in a particular job will have similar work-related responses, but these responses will differ from employees in another job. Self-choice tendencies (see Holland, 1973, 1976; Schneider, 1983) may account for the situation-centered and job-related differences in this study.

The results of this study, however, should be tempered by some important limitations that suggest several directions for future research. First, only two job types were assessed in this study. Moreover, both jobs involved selling, and the sales associates were all employed by one organization. Future studies could focus on multiple types of jobs from numerous companies in a variety of industries. In this way, the generalizability of results in the present study could be further assessed.

Second, a limited number of employee responses and factors intluencing them were investigated. Moreover, with the exception of the multirater performance ratings, all measures were self-report. Additional employee responses and reactions, gathered by self- and other reports, as well as observations, for example, could be included in future research. In this way, differences in employee responses would be more completely as- sessed, and measurement and construct validity issues could be addressed.

Third, building on the above directions for future research, a more complete “interactionist” perspective could be adopted. Researchers could focus on the ways in which employees select themselves into and out of situations and on the continuous and reciprocal influences between persons and situations over time (Rowe, 1987; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). Processes by which particular personal and situational attributes in interaction over time yield certain employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors could be investigated.

Fourth, although results primarily supported the situation-centered per- spective, they may have been confounded by the fact that the majority of respondents in the sales associate jo&a female-dominated position- were women, while the majority of employees in the independent agent job-a male-dominated position-were men. Future studies could seek to clarify these results by investigating larger samples of employees in more “neutral” jobs-dominated by neither females nor males-as well as by obtaining samples of relatively similar numbers of women and men for a particular job.

Finally, the magnitude of the effects as assessed by the multivariate and univariate q values were not very large. For example, the single greatest variance explained for a multivariate effect after controlling the

Page 17: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

382 YAMMARINO AND DUBINSKY

covariates was approximately 18% (job main effect for job characteristics), while another statistically significant main effect explained as little as 3% of the variance (gender main effect for involvement). The 7 values for the univariate results indicated similarly low levels of variance explained. Future research could use more sophisticated and rigorous analyses and testing procedures to clarify and further assess these effects (see Dansereau et al., 1984).

Despite limitations, the present study was a first step in some of these directions. Three competing frameworks for explaining differences in employee responses were specified. These frameworks were then tested relative to one another using multivariate and univariate procedures that included controlling effects of other variables and assessments of mag- nitudes of effects to draw stronger inferences. The findings suggest that, in general, the work-related similarities of women and men are more frequent, and perhaps more intriguing, than the often presumed differences.

REFERENCES Bell, G. D. (1965). The influence of technological components of work upon management

control. Journal of the Academy of Management, 8, 127-132. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press. Comer, J. M., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1985). Managing the successful sales force. Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational

behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105-I 16.

Donnelly, J. H., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1975). Role clarity and the salesman. Journal of Marketing, 39, 71-74.

Fagenson, E. A. (1986). Women’s work orientations: Something old, something new. Group & Organization Studies, 11, 75-100.

Fagenson, E. A., & Horowitz, S. V. (1985). On moving up: A test of the person-centered, organization-centered, and interactionist perspectives. Academy of Management Pro- ceedings, 45, 345-349.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (1986). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.

Finn, J. D. (1974). A general model for multivariate analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 250-279.

Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Holland, J. L. (1973). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. Holland, J. L. (1976). Vocational preferences. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 521-570). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Page 18: Employee responses: Gender- or job-related differences?

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES 383

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573.

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods,

theory, and applications. New York: Academic Press. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1%5). The definition and measurement of job involvement.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33. Martin, Y. M., Harrison, D., & Dinitto, D. (1983). Advancement for women in hierarchical

organizations: A multi-level analysis of problems and prospects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 19-33.

McHugh, M. C., Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 41, 879-890.

Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.

Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist, 35, 902-910.

Rizzo, J., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Rowe, D. C. (1987). Resolving the person-situation debate: Invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue. American Psychologist, 42, 218-227.

Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 5, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fide& L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.

Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in or- ganizations. Academy of Management Review, 6, 569-576.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1985). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Received: September 1, 1987