Gender Differences in Attitudes Towards Work Group in the United States and Japan

Gender Differences in Attitudes Towards Work Group in the United States and Japan*

Tetsushi Fujimoto

Abstract This study examines gender differences in employees’ group orientations on the basis of the United States-Japan gender comparisons of individual work attitudes. It is hypothesized that the gender differences in work group orientations disappear when workplace structures and styles of supervision are held constant across individual employees in the U.S. and Japan. The results show that the impact of being a woman on work group orientations is relatively small in both countries. At least, the impact of gender on Japanese and American group attitudes does not appear to be powerful enough to reinforce the assertion that. gender is an absolute determinant of work attitudes. Although gender-based arguments can not be fully rejected by the present results, the fact that one is a woman produced only a minimal increment in employees’ work group orientations, when men and women worked in similarly structured organizations. The findings, however, indicate that gender differences in work group orientations are not thoroughly reducible to the fact that workplaces are differently structured for the two genders in Japan and the U.S. The possibility of cultural embeddedness of individual affective work orientations is discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The extraordinary collective identification of Japanese workers has been the subject of considerable research in sociology of organizations. While a general consensus seems to exist that unusually strong group orientation is distinctive of Japanese industrial workers, there are several methodological limitations in prior research.

First, the past research almost exclusively focused attention on the group attitudes of Japanese men, while studies investigating women workers’ reactions have been rare. Although the question of who the dominant group-centered social actors are, and what motivates their group orientations, is important in dealing with Japanese groupism, l i - mited attention has been given to this issue in past studies (Cole, 1979; Marsh and Mannari, 1976; Whitehill and Takezawa, 1968). Previous researchers have often disregarded the women, as if they were simple social appendages of the men. These studies assume that groups have similar meanings to all participants, regardless of gender. Since little empirical evidence exists to support the assumption that Japanese women are oriented to groups to the same extent as men, we still do not

*This research was partly supported by a grant from the Joint Committee on Japan Studies of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies with funds provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The author gratefully acknowledges James Lincoln for his generous permission to use his data set for this study. Special thanks to Jennifer Glass for her comments and sugges- tions, and Sharon Miller for her help editing the manuscript. Direct all correspond- ence to Tetsushi Fujimoto, Department of American Studies, Nanzan University, 18 Yamazato-cho. Showa-ku. Nagoya-shi 466 Japan.

I J J S Number 4 (1995) - 57 -

International Journal of Japanese Sociology

know whether Japanese group orientation i s a general socio-cultural phenomenon o r whether it is a gender-specific phenomenon. Thus , one question tha t remains unclear i s whether groupism is a form- of general worker reaction to the social organization of work in Japan,-or whether it evolves from the gendered organization of work.

T h e second limitation in pr ior research is a monolithic operationa- lization of the concept “group orientation”. The concept has been mainly operationalized in pr ior research (e.g., Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1985; Marsh and Mannari , 1976) as workers’ psychological attachment to the employer or the organization, ra ther than workers’ immediate work group. In the sense that factory workers in many cases belong to a narrowly construed group such a s line teams, along with the broadly construed group, i.e., the firm itself, reducing the concept of group orientation solely to worker commitment to the organization is imperfect. Another reason why it is important to focus on work groups is that group cohe- sion may be one of the key determinants of employees’ work morale (Wor thy , 1950; Likert, 1961). As Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990, p. 72) suggest, the discipline and compliance of Japanese workers may in pa r t stem from pressures from work groups. Th i s poses the important question a s to whether American workers’ work motivation can also be enhanced by pressures from their work groups. Our knowledge, however, is still limited a s to whether work groups operate similarly for Japanese and American workers.

Th i s research will address the limitations in prior research by directly comparing the work group-oriented attitudes among factory men and women in the United States and Japan. Specifically, it addres- ses the following questions: (1) Are women factory workers more group-oriented than men factory workers in Japan and the United States? ( 2 ) Can gender differences in work group orientations be reduced to the differences in the way workplaces a re s t ructured for men and women in Japan and the United States?

THEORETICAL ISSUES

Th i s research is guided by three conceptual models that provide potential explanations for gender differences in individual orientations to the work group: the gender model, the workplace s t ruc ture model, and the controlled participation model. These three models a re briefly discussed below.

The Gender Model

First, the gender model k f . Feldberg and Glenn, 1979) presents a static view on the processes through which workers’ att i tudes a r e formed. T h e base argument of this nodel is that individual att i tudes towards work a re essentially shaped by the forces that a r e external to

- 58 -

Gender Differences in Attitudes Towards Work Group in the United States and Japan

the work settings, and that differences in work attitudes between men and women arise from differential gender socializations experienced prior to employment relationships. I t is assumed in this model that men are raised to f i l l the social role of family economic provider, while women are socialized to accept the homemaker role as the primary source of their identity. This is the type of argument eminently adv- anced by human capital theorists (e.g., Becker, 1985) and widely shared by management. Based on the gender model, some argue that women value most highly the rewards, such as congenial coworker relations, but do not value autonomy and achievement in their jobs to the same extent as men (Murray and Atkinson, 1981).

The model suggests that women value social aspects of work more that men do, primarily because women are socialized to seek and be content with rewards that are readily available in their own personal circumstances, rather than to compete with others for rewards that are difficult to obtain. Men, in contrast, do not value social relations to the same extent as women, because they are socialized to be competitive in order to seek job rewards that are much less readily available, such as promotions. Therefore based on the gender model assertions, one could expect that women in both Japan and the United States would exhibit stronger work group orientations than men, irrespective of their jobs and organizational characteristics.

A major weakness of the gender model lies in its deterministic nature. It is almost exclusively assumed in this theory that in any given society women’s values are different from men’s, due to the different patterns of primary socializations experienced by men and women and the different values they bring to the workplace. Because of this strong flavor of gender determinism, the gender model can only offer a null hypothesis, that material conditions of work have no significant impact on women’s work attitudes. The Workplace Structure Model

In clear contrast with the gender model, the workplace structure model (cf. Kanter, 1977; Lincoln and Kalleberg. 1985; 1990) presents a dynamic view on attitude formation, while focusing on an array of organizational characteristics as sources of employee motivations. This model maintains that worker attitudes are a result of the.management strategies of organizational structuring, and therefore the observed differences in Tob attitudes between individual workers mainly stem from disparities in the way their jobs and the organizations are structured. The model can be applied to explain that gender differences in work group orientations may be reduced to the fact that men and women tend to work in workplaces that are characterized by different types of structures.

According to Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990), structures such as the proliferation of subunits (e.g., departments, sections, and teams) , highly

- 59 -


differentiated job s ta tus hierarchies, and mechanisms for shop-floor participation in decision-making, facilitate the group attachment of workers . When an organization is horizontally differentiated into a number of subuni ts , these subuni ts a r e seen as different -groups with distinctive functional specializations and task territories. These dis- tinctions elicit from workers the sense of membership in .a group. Sepa- ra te subuni t s under different supervisors may detelop their own rules, procedures, and norms, and therefore these factors help reinforce individual senses of belonging, which can form the base of internally cohe- s ive groups. .

Subuni t groups may compete with one another for higher productiv- i ty (Cole, 1979). The individual consciousness of such competitions may be enhanced by small group appara tus such a s quality control (QC) circles. Th i s is because increased ’levels of shop-floor participation through small group programs may strengthen the individual sense of contribution to the group’s productivity maximization.

Finely-graded job s ta tus hierarchies a r e another s t ruc ture of theoretical importance. Tall hierarchies a re one of the indicators of f i rm internal labor markets (Kalleberg and Berg, 1987). They imply job lad- de r s and promotion opportunities, which encourage employees to s tay long term and invest energy in the firm for future intra-firm career advancement. A significant point is tha t promotion largely depends on a worker’s performance in the group level. Especially when team work is encouraged in the workplace, o r is important a t performing the job, workers a re pressured to work with others in order to maintain high group productivity. An uncooperative att i tude on the pa r t of a worker may affect his o r her evaluation, i.e., promotion. Thus , tall hierarchies imply promotional opportunities, and they could in tu rn induce work group orientations from the employees.

While the workplace s t ructure model has a s t rong explanatory power for cross-national differences in work group orientations, it is not without weaknesses. Fo r instance, the model assumes that the strategies of job and organizational s t ructur ing maximize the group attachment for all organizational actors. The model fails to recognize the possibility that certain organizational s t ruc tures may have different impacts on individuals. To il lustrate, tall s ta tus hierarchies may have a significant meaning for those who desire internal career advancement, whereas such hierarchies may have no particular meanings for those who do not. The Controlled Participation Model

Although the controlled participation model focuses on job s t ructures , like the workplace s t ruc ture model, a s a source of worker motivation it places a s t ronger emphasis on management authority and control over work processes. Cole (1979) suggests that the management of Japanese companies often plays a behind-the-scene role of allegedly democratic employee involvement in job designs. The management con-

- 60 -


trols workers by taking the lead, formally and informally, in initiating policies that workers a re guided to accept. This is called “controlled participation”. Cole argues that increased worker responsibility in Japanese firms takes place in the work situation where management controls the individual processes of work. As Wood (1989) indicates, supervisors play the key role in labor control- on the Japanese shop floor. Similarly, management cultivates the ideology of the enterprise community to limit self-oriented efforts on the pa r t of workers who a re t rying to enhance their rights and privileges.

Cole emphasizes that the consensus in Japanese organizations i s cou- pled with the s t rong exercise of management power and authority over the processes of work. Cole’s argument implies that the group orientations of Japanese workers may be an’artifact, which i s strategically induced by the management authority and control. Explicit indicators of such management authority on the ~ shop floor may be supervisory attempts of close surveillance and frequent intervention in employees’ work processes. By closely supervising employees, management encourages cooperation and personal sacrifice but discourages self-orientations. This way, Japanese employers tactically manipulate employees to make the taming of the whole organization easier. Thus , Japanese management always retains a s t rong authority over core decision making in the workplace. Summary

Given these conceptual approaches, the major goal of this research is to assess the theoretical expectations a s to how group-oriented att i tudes a re formed among men and women workers in the United States and Japan. The main focus is the. issue of whether gender differences in ern- ployee att i tudes towards work groups can be reduced to the cross- national disparit ies in the way jobs and workplaces a re s t ructured. I compare the gender model with the workplace s t ructure model and the con trolled participation model to form a basic analytic framework.

Firs t , according to the reasoning of the gender model, even when men and women employees work in similarly s t ructured workplaces, women should be more oriented to their work groups than a r e men. Thus , the argument of this model will be supported when the positive effect of being a woman on work group orientations remains significant, even af- te r controlling for workplace characterist ics across genders, in the Un- ited States and Japan. This expectation is based on the assumption that social institutions and gendered cultures in different socio-cultural settings influence women in a similar fashion. The gender model scarcely acknowledges the possibility that even if women a r e generally more likely to value social aspects of work, the extent to which they value social rewards may differ between socio-cultural settings. Since cross- national differences exist in women’s relative experience of pr imary socialization, educational training (Brinton, 1988) , and performance of

- 6 1 -


social roles (Naoi and Schooler, 1990), women’s propensity towards valuation of social rewards may vary across countries. Thus , even when the positive effect of gender on work group att i tudes pers is ts in the U.S. and Japan, the magnitude of the effect may be different between the two countries.

In contrast , the key implication of the workplace s t ruc ture and the controlled participation models is that workers’ group orientations may be induced by the management strategies of job/workplace structuring. These models suggest that allegedly stronger female orientations towards coworkers in their work groups may be a consequence of the fact t ha t women’s workplaces a re so organized. According to these models, no gender differences may emerge in individual orientations to the work group when job/ organizationat s t ruc tures of men and women workers a r e the same. Note that by integrating these two models i t allows u s to assess the direct and indirect, o r coercive and symbolic, means of labor control a s the strategy of eliciting employees’ work group orientations. Based on the workplace s t ruc ture model, one could predict that when employees work in organizations with equal levels of horizontal and vertical differentiations, small group programs, promotional provisions, and emphasis on team work, they should be similarly group-oriented, irrespective of gender. In this model, workplace s t ructural impacts a re considered to be universal, and therefore the gender effect should disappear both in Japan and the United States once workplace characterist ics a r e held constant across employees. Similar- ly, based on the controlled participation model, one could expect that when superv isors exercise close worker surveillance and intervention, while encouraging team work, men and women employees a r e equally likely to exhibit high levels of group orientation. Hence, the arguments of these models will be supported i f the positive effect of being a woman disappears once workplace and supervision characterist ics a r e controlled between men and women workers in the United States and Japan.

METHODOLOGY

Data T h e da ta used in this s tudy come from the Japan-U.S. comparative

research conducted by James Lincoln and Arne Kalleberg between 1981-1983 (for details, see Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990). The manufacturing plants studied were located in central Indiana (mostly the In- dianapolis metropolitan area) and in the Atsugi region of Kanagawa prefecture. These a reas have a similar industry distribution and they a re comparable in degrees of urbanization.

T h e total sample size was 4,567 in the U.S. and 3,735 in Japan.

- 62 -


Sixteen percent of the total population in the Atsugi sample was women ( N = 5 9 4 ) and 26% fell into this category in the Indiana sample ( N = 1,194) . The sample largely comprises employees in production departments (on average 82% in Japan and 95% in the U.S.). The majority of employees surveyed are non-managerial/supervisory employees, although 34% of Japanese men are managers or supervisors. The average company tenure of American employees of either sex is approximately 11 years. A large tenure disparity exists between Japanese men (13 years) and Japanese women (6 years). The average f i rm size for American employees is 1,015, which is twice as large as that for Japanese employees (555) . Over 70% of both Japanese and American men in this sample are married, while many more American women (57%) than Japanese women (43%) are. married. The typical employee in this sample of either nationality and gender has a high school level education (see Table 1 ) .

One particular strength of this sample is that because of the multi- dimensional nature of the data, the integration of micro-level information of worker attitudes with organization-level information becomes possible. Weaknesses of the data should also be mentioned. As noted above, the data information comes exclusively from manufacturing workers in restricted areas of the United States and Japan. Information on hours of work and race are not available in the data. Japanese female workers are underrepresented, in contrast to the government statistics on female labor participation rate between 1981 and 1983 (39.1% on average, according to Japan Ministry of Labor, 1989). Measures

All the attitudinal variables used in the analysis were measured on 5-point Likert-format scale, with higher values indicating greater amounts of each variable. The crucial variables with missing values were substituted with the mean for that respondent’s nationality and gender . Measures of Work Group Orientations

Two questionnaire items were separately used to measure employee orientations to their work groups. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each item on a five-point scale. For both items, “strongly agree“ was given a score of 5. The statement of these items are as follows:

1) Importance of Group Work: “When I have a choice, I t ry to work in a group instead of by myself.”

2) Work Group Priority: “I try to do my best for my work group even if i t costs me.” Measures of Workplace Structures

Workplace structures were measured a t two levels of aggregation:

-63-


objective organizational a t t r ibutes and individual perceptions of job s t ructures . The f i rs t four variables pertain to objective at t r ibutes of the whole organization. T h e las t four pertain to individual perceptions of job s t ructures .

1) Firm size was measured by the total number of employees in the plant. 2) Number of authority ranks was measured by the number of

hierarchical levels from lowest direct worker to highest manager in the plant.

3) Number of departments reflects the number of units one level below plant manager.

4) Number of sections was measured by the number of units below the department level.

5) Supervisory encouragement of team work: “Your supervisor encourages team work.” (1 = strongly disagree, 5. = strongly agree)

6 ) Team work requirement: “I must work closely with o thers to do my job well.” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

7) QC circle membership was measured by the following dummy variable: 1 = participates, 0 = does not participate.

8 ) Promotion expectation: 1 = expect to be promoted, 0 = not expect.

Measures of Supervisory Styles Four separate variables pertaining to s tyles of supervision were used

in this analysis. Items 1 through 3 were on a five-point scale. For items 1 and 2, “strongly agree” was assigned a score of 5; for item 3, “strongly disagree” was given a score of 5. Item 4 was on a three-point scale a s described below. The statements a r e a s follows.

1) Supervisory say: “My supervisor has a great deal of s ay over what I do.”

2) Supervisory monitoring: “ M y supervisor can see me all the time I am working.”

3 ) Close supervisor contact: “My supervisor lets me alone unless I ask for help.”

4 ) Supervisory decision making: 0 = I decide what I do and how I do it; 1 = my supervisor decides what I do, bu t I decide how I do it; 2 = my supervisor decides what I do and how I do it.

Measzues of Individual Backgrounds Tenure was measured by the appropriate number of years employed

a t the present f i rm . Job rank and functional department were measured by the follow-

ing dummy codes: 1 = manager o r supervisor , 0 = worker; 1 = line o r technical production, 0 = other

Gender and marital status were measured according to the following dichotomous codes: 1 = woman, 0 = man; 1 = married, 0 = unmar-

- 64 -


ried Education was tapped by a 6-point scale, where 1 = elementary, 2

= some high school, 3 = high school graduate, 4 = some college, 5 = college graduate, 6 = more than B.A.

RESULTS

Mean Comparison The resul ts of t-Tes,s, computed ,J assess the overall gender and

national differences in work group att i tudes and workplace characteristics, a r e presented in Table 1. Signlficant gender and national differences appeared in the mean levels of two work group orientation variables. The results revealed the complexity and multidimensionality of employee orientation to work groups.

Table 1 Comparisons of Variables in Analysis for Japanese and American Men and Women Employees based on &Tests; lMeans and Standard Deviations.

Japanese American !den Women Men Wonen

Mean SD Mean SD hlean SD Mean SD

Importance of Group Work Work Group Priority ‘A gc

hlarital Statits Education hl:inaner/ Super visor Tenure Production Department Firm Size/100U Number of Authority Ranks Number of Departments Number of Sections Team Work Encouraged by Supervisor Team Work Requirement QC Circle Member Promotion Expectation Supervisory Say Supervisory h1o;itoring CIose Supervisor Contacts Supervisory Decision Making

3.23 1.13 3.40 .90

35.98 9.63 .71 .15

12.08 2.09 .34 .17

13.08 8.12 .85 .35

5.63 1.57 5.67 6.12

18.33 19.36 3.60 .99 3.85 .98

.77 .38

.30 .44 3.73 .95 2.93 1.10 3.23 1.03 1.01 .63

640.0 665.8

3.42 1.10 2.98 1.07 3.14 .84 [4.07 .79

29.99 10.52 38.28 11.33 .43 .50 ,77 .12

11.55 1.16 12.23 2.12 .05 .21 . I9 .39

6.25 5.50 11.53 9.75 .79 .40 .95 .20

5.12 1.63 [5.05 1.01 5.51 1.86 [6.48 1.79

17.26 16.51 14.39 13.46 3.57 .98 3.49 1.05 3.54 1.07 3.27 i .19

.66 .37 [.27 .43

.03 . I6 [.30 .45 3.73 .97 3.69 1.03 3.02 1.12 2.74 1.17 3.06 1.04 2.15 .92 1.40 .64 .99 .59

473.7 532.8 890.0 129.2

3.08 1.13

39.35 11.20 .57 .49

11.38 1.84 .05 .a

10.45 9.06 .93 .24

4.10 .811

11,11.2 166.0 4.99 .841 6.55 1.541

17.17 15.18 3.61 1.03 3.05 1.18

.17 .37] 3.89 .98 3.15 1.16 2.03 .85 1.28 .62

.25 .411

NOTE: Mean scores a r e significantly different ( p ( .05) between genders within each corntry, except for the scores in brackets.

When employees were asked whether they would t r y to work in a group when they have a choice (importance of group w o r k ) , women in

- 65 -


both countries reported higher mean scores than the men, consistent with the gender model expectation. The Japanese men and women were much more likely than their American counterpar ts to agree tha t they would t r y to work in a group. The Japanese men were more likely than Japanese women to agree that they would t r y to do their best for their work group even if it i s costly to them (work group pr ior i ty) . F o r American employees, however, there was no significant gender difference in their responses to this item. Interestingly, the American men and women were much more likely than their Japanese counterpar ts to say tha t they would do their best for the work group.

In general , work organizations for Japanese men were larger in terms of employee size, and taller in terms of job s ta tus hierarchies, than those for Japanese women. There were no. gender differences, however, in the mean number of departments and sections among Japanese employees. Japanese men and women were both likely to agree that their superv isors encouraged team work, however Japanese men perceived a higher degree of necessity to work in a team sett ing in order to perform their jobs well. Not surprisingly, the mean level of promotion expectation was significantly higher among Japanese men than among Japanese women.

For Americans in contrast , women tended to work in larger organizations with more sections. Yet, there were no significant gender differences in the mean number of authority ranks and departments in organizations for Americans. While American women were more likely than their male counterpar ts to s ay that their supervisors encouraged team work, they were less likely to agree that team work was required for their task performance.

Turn ing to styles of supervision, results suggest that men and women a r e under different types of supervision in the two countries. While in Japan there were no significant gender differences in the level of super - visor’s authori ty over one’s work, American women experienced significantly higher levels of supervisory say than did American men. A s to supervisory monitoring, women in both countries were more likely than their men counterpar ts to be monitored closely, yet the mean difference in Japan did not reach statistical significance. While men in both coun- t r ies were more likely than women to disagree with the statement tha t their superv isors left them alone unless they asked for help, women in both countries experienced less degrees of freedom from the influence of s t rong supervisory decision making. Mu I tip I e Regressions

The resul ts of the multiple regression of the importance of group work for Japanese employees a re presented in Table 2. The Model 1 equation includes employee background variables only. A s anticipated, being a woman exhibited a statistically significant positive effect on importance of group work among the Japanese (b = . I 07, p ( . l o > , with-

- 66 -


Table 2 Unstandardized Coefficients (Standard Deviations) Obtained from Regressions of Importance of Group Work on Selected Variables for a Sample of Japanese Workers.

Importance of Group Work Japanese (N-3248)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 b (SD) b (SD) b (SD)

Gender Age Marital Status Education Manager/Supervisor Tenure Production Department Firm Size/1000 Number of Authority Ranks Number of Departments Number of Sections Team Work Encouraged by Supervisor Team Work Requirement QC Circle Member Promotion Expectation Supervisory Say Supervisory Monitoring Close Supervisor Contacts Supervisory Decision Making Constant R'

.107' - .004 - .078 - .008

.032 - .002 - .076

-

3.622" .008

( .058) (. 003) (. 056) (.011) (. 052) (.004) (. 057j

(. 193)

.132* - .005 - .093 -. 012 -.011 - .003 -.046 - -021

.006 -.024"

. o w

.087"'

.123"' - .080 - .055

2.942"' .030

( .060) ( .003) (. 056) (. 012) (. 053) (. 004) (. 057) (.043) (.013) (. 009) (, 003) ( , 020) (. 020) (.056) (.051)

(. 228)

.142* (.061) - .005 (. 003) - .096' (. 056) -.013 (.012) -. 019 (. 053) - .003 (.004) -.041 (. 057) -.022 (.044)

.005 (.013) - .023" (. 009)

.007* (.003)

.086' ' (.021)

.123"* ( .020) - .078 (. d56)

.053 (.051) - .009 ( .022)

.022 (.018)

.007 (.019) - .039 (.034) 2.94 1" f .218)

.03 1

out holding constant the workplace characteristics and styles of supervision. The sample differences in workplace structures were controlled in Model 2. In this step, magnitude of the gender effect was significantly boosted (b = .132), and the effect was statistically significant (p ( .05). In Model 3, four additional supervision variables were added to the Model 2 equation. In this model, magnitude of the effect of being a woman was further boosted (b = .142, p ( .05). Thus, contrary to the expectation of the work structural perspective, the size of gender coefficient for Japanese employees was increased by approximately 3 3% after workpiace characteristics and styles of supervision were controlled for across individuals.

Table 3 presents the results of multiple regression of the importance of group work, similarly performed for American employees. In Model 1, being a woman increased American importance of group work by .137 (p ( .001), without controlling for workplace characteristics and styles of supervision. When workplace structures were held constant in Model 2, the magnitude of the gender effect was slightly diminished (b = .111, p ( .01). In Model 3, where supervision styles were con-

-67-



Importance of Group Work American (N=3864)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 b (SD) b (SD) b (SD)

Gender Age Marital S ta tus Education Manager/Supervisor Tenure Production Department Firm Size/ 1000 Number of Authority Ranks Number of Departments Number of Sections Team Work Encouraged by Supervisor Team Work Requirement QC Circle hIember Promotion Expectation Supervisory Say Supervisory Xlonitoring Close Supervisor Contacts Supervisory Decision Making Const2nt R'

.137"'

. 000 - ,048 - .046* * *

.358"*

.255" - .003

3.287"' 018

(.041)

( .040)

(. 054) ( .003) ( .083)

(. 002)

(. 010)

(. 172)

.111"

. 000 - .056 -. 048"' -. 151" -. 008"'

.234"

.059"'

.002

.012 ,000 .077"' .180'

-. 098' - .029

2.454"' .073

(.041)

(. 039)

( . 055) (. 003) (.081) (.016) ( . o m ( . 010) (.001) (.017) (.015) (. 040) (. 042)

(.002)

(. 009)

( .210)

.074 '

. 000 - .050 - .041* * -. 224"' -.007"

.196'

.056'

.003

.014

. 000

.084'

.174"'

.097' -.018

.019

.023

.025

.158"* 2.0'7"'

.083

(. 042) (, .002) (. 039) (. 009) (. 057) ( .003) (.081) (.016) (.021) ( . 010) (.001) (.017) (.015) (. 039) (.041) i.018) 1.015) 1.019) ( . 038) ( . '26)

trolled, the magnitude of the effect of being a woman was significantly reduced ( b = .074), and the effect was only marginally significant ( p ( . l o ) . Thus , the magnitude of the gender effect for American employees was minimized by approximately 46% after controlling for workplace characterist ics and supervision styles. These resul ts a r e consistent with the expectation derived from the workplace and the controlled participation models. Notice tha t the gender coefficient in Model 3 for Americans ( b = .074) was about half the size of the coefficient for Japanese employees ( b = . 1 4 2 ) .

In the American sample, employees' education, job rank, tenure, and functional departments consistently exerted a significant impact on the importance of group work. While having higher education and longer tenure tended to reduce the levels of importance placed on group work, managers/supervisors , and production employees were more likely to place importance on group work. Among the characterist ics of workplace and s tyles of supervision, five variables exerted a significant positive influence: firm size (b = .056, p < .001), supervisory encouragement of team work (b = .084, p ( .001), team work require-

- 68 -


ments (b = .174, p < .001), QC circle membership (b = .097, p ( .05), and supervisory decision making (b = .158, p ( . O O l ) . Since the effects of these variables were statistically significant in Model 3, it seems that the difference in a gender coefficient between the first and the third models (.063) represents the amount that is mediated by the differences in these job/organizational characteristics between Japan and the United States.

Note that while the effect of being a woman was statistically significant for the Japanese and the American samples, the magnitude of this effect was relatively small in both countries. At least, the impact of being a woman on Japanese and American emphasis of group work does not appear to be powerful enough to reinforce the gender model assertions. Although gender-based arguments can not be fully rejected by these results, the fact that one is a woman produced only a minimal increment in employees' preference for group work, when men and women w o r ke d i n s i m i 1 a r 1 y s t r u c t u red organ i z at i on s .

Table 4 Unstandardized Coefficients (Standard Deviations) Obtained from Regressions o f Importance of Group Work on Selected Variables for a Sample of Japanese Workers.

Work Group Priority Japanese (N=31 11)

Model 1 hlodcl 2 Model 3 b (SD) h (SD) 11 (SD)

C cn d e r A fie Marital Status Education bIanager/Supcrvisor Tenure Production Department Firm Size/1000 Number of Authority Ranks Number of Departments Number of Sections Team Work Encouraged by Supervisor Team Work Requirement QC Circle Member Promotion Expectation Supervisory Say Supervisory Monitoring CIose Supervisor Contacts Siipervisory Decision Making Constant R2

-

-.150"' .004 .060

-.012 .210"' .002 .042

3.223"' .035

-. 139" .002 .052

-.012 .173"' .003 .052 .015

-.014 .007

- .004 .093"' .082"*

-.001 - .030

2.730"' .058

( .04S) ( .003) (.044) ( f009) (.041) (. 003) (.045) (.034) (.010) ( .007) ( .002) (.016) (.OM) (. 044) (. 040)

(.181)

-. 128" .om .04s

-.013 .11;7*-* .003 .063 .019

-.016 .007

- .004 .090"' .081 .002 .026 .Oll

-. 178" -.026' - .075" 2.781"'

.064

p(.O5; * * p(.C)l; * * * p(.OOl

Next I turned to the analysis of work group priority. Table 4 re-

- 69 -


ports the results of multiple regression for Japanese employees. The analysis revealed that for the Japanese the picture with regard to work group priority was quite different from that of the importance of group work. Unexpectedly, being a woman reduced the Japanese work group priority by .15 (p < .001> in Model 1, without controlling for workplace structures and supervision styles. This negative. gender effect was slightly smaller in Model 2 (b = -.139, p < . O l > with workplace structures held constant across Japanese employees. When styles of supervision were entered in Model 3, the magnitude of the effect of being a woman was further reduced to -.128 (p < . . O l > . Thus, the size of the gender coefficient for Japanese employees was minimized only by 15% after controlling for characteristics of workplace and supervision. This negative effect of being a woman on the Japanese group priority is contrary to my initial expectations about gender differences in work group orientations. These results indicate that .Japanese women are less likely than their male counterparts to prioritize work groups when there are no differences in employees' personal backgrounds, workplace characteristics, and supervision styles.


Work Group Priority American 1N = 3566)

Model 1 Model Z 'vlodel 3 b (SD) b (SD) b (SD)

Gender Age Marital Status Education ManagerISupervisor Tenure Production Department Firm S i z e / 1 0 0 0 Number of Authority Ranks Number of Departments Number of Sections Team Work Encouraged by Supervisor Team Work Requirement QC Circle Member Promotion Expectation Supervisory Say Supervisory Monitoring CIose Supervisor Contacts Supervisory Decision Making Constant R 2

.042

.057'

.193"'

.012***

- .005

- .004' -.017

-

- - - -

3.631' .035

(. 030) (. 002) ( .029) (. 007) ( .039) ( .OOZ) (. 069)

( . 124)

.055' (.030)

.012"' ( .002)

.055' (.029) - .005 (. 007)

.076' (.040) - .003 ( . 002)

.003 (. 059) -.024' (.012)

.042" (.OlG)

. 000 (. 007) ,000 i. 000) ,056"' (.012) .061** (.011) .077" (.029) .117"' (.031)

2.992' [ . 154) .061

.060* i.030)

.012"' ( . 002)

.051 (. 029) - .006 ( .007)

.091 (. 042) - .003 ( . 002) -.001 (. 059) -.023' (.012)

.042" (.016)

. 000 ( .007)

. 000 ( ,000)

.044"' (.013)

.062' (.011)

.075" (. 029)

. i10*** (.031)

.032* (.014)

.009 (.011) -. 039" (. 014) -.061** (.023) 3.057' (. 166)

,065

-- 70 -


In the Japanese sample, being a manager or a supervisor significantly increased the levels of work group priority. Unexpectedly, three supervision variables exhibited significant negative effects among the Japanese: supervisory monitoring (b = -.128, p ( . O l > , supervisory contact (b = -.026, p ( . l o ) , and decision making (b = -.075, p ( .01).

The multiple regression of work group priority was similarly performed for American employees (Table 5). While gender did not exert statistically significant effects on American group priority in Model 1, when workplace structures were controlled in Model 2, the magnitude of gender effects was boosted from .042 to .055, and it was marginally significant (p ( . l o ) . When supervisory styles were held constant in Model 3, the gender effect was further .boosted (b = .06), and it was significant a t the .05 level. Thus, these results are inconsistent with the prediction based on the structural perspective, suggesting that American women are more likely than American men to prioritize their work group, when there.are no gender differences in the characteristics of the workplace and supervision.

CONCLUSION

This paper began with the question whether gender differences in Japanese and American employees’ work group orientations can be reduced to individual differences in the circumstances of work. Consider- able evidence has been marshaled for a more complex view of the processes through which employees come to perceive their work groups. The results reported here indicate that gender is not necessarily an absolute determinant of individual orientations to the work group; the impact of gender on group orientations is generally small. Thus , the present results discount the assertion that gender is the key predictor of how individuals affectively react to work.

Results, however, provided mixed support for the workplace structural perspective. Gender differences in work group orientations could not be reduced solely to the fact that jobs/workplaces are differently structured for men and women in organizations in the two countries. For Japanese importance of group work and for American work group priority, the gender effect was even more pronounced when individuals worked under the same work structural conditions. One possible explanation is that as men’s and women’s jobs are increasingly structured in similar ways, it becomes more important for women to secure the social support of their work group members, to increase the flexibility of their work scheduling in order to reduce conflicts between work and family.

Although Japanese men and women preferred task performance in a group setting more than their American counterparts, American em-

-71-


ployees of either gender showed significantly s t ronger psychological readiness to prioritize their work group than their Japanese counterpar ts . Thus , while it is t rue that many Japanese employees do place considerable emphasis on group work, this does not immediately mean self-sacrificing loyalty to their group. In contrast , the fact that Amer- ican employees do not s t ress group work to the s a m e ‘extent as the Japanese do, does not preclude American employees’ psychological attachment to their work groups.

The present analysis has shown tha t Japanese group orientations a re not necessarily a general cultural phenomenon, nor a r e they purely gender-specific. While prioritizing of one’s work group appears to be a tendency relatively common among both Japanese men and women, preference for group work seems to be slightly more prevalent among Japanese women, if not female-specific. Th i s suggests the importance of decomposing the concept of group orientations in .order to understand how group att i tudes differentiate by gender. Although the present findings provide some cues for. the rest ructur ing of a workplace, it is important to acknowledge that gender is a factor that conditions how job s t ruc tures affect group attitudes.

The present conceptual framework has limited its focus on the job-related aspects of employees’ lives. If at t i tudes a re formed in the web of complex social relations, cues provided by individual perceptions of gender-based norms about work and non-work roles may have been an important omitted variable. F o r males, the importance of team work may be closely related to self-identity as economic providers: while for females, group work may be important for the integration of work and family. The pat terns of such gender differentiation may be embedded in the social s t ruc tures of different socio-cultural settings.

While this s tudy opened the way for an explanation of the gender and national differences in work group orientations, more rigorous in- vestigation is necessary to understand what it is about group work that motivates and inhibits American and Japanese employees. Future research on job att i tudes would benefit by looking more closely a t the similarities and dissimilarities in the ways that social institutions con- dition att i tude formation in individuals across different cultural settings.

REFERENCES

Becker, G a r y S. 1985. “Human Capital, Effor ts and :he Sexual Division of Labor.” journal of

Brinton, Mary C. (1988). “ T h e social-institutional bases of gender stratification: Japan as

Cole, Robert E. 1979. Work, Mobility, and Participation. Universi ty of California Press . Feldberg. Roslyn L.. and Evelyn Nakano Glenn. 1979. “Male and Female: Jobs vs. Gender

Labor Economics 3: 533-558.

an i l lustrat ive case.” American Journal of Sociology 9 4 , 3 0 0 - 3 3 4 .

Models in the Sociology of Work.” Social Problem 26: 5 2 4 - 3 8 .

- 72 -

Gender Differences in Attitudes Towards Work Group i n the United States and Japan

Japan Ministry of Labor. 1989. Ftijin Rodo na Jitstijyo (Status of women's libor). Govern- ment Printing Office.

Kalleberg, Arne L. and Ivar Berg. 1987. Work and Industry: Structures, Markets and Proces- ses. New York and London: Plenum.

Kanter. Rosabeth Moss. 1977. illen and Women of the Corporation. Basic Books. Likert, Renois. 1961. New Pattenis of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lincoln, James R., and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1985 . "Work Organization and Workforce Com-

mitment: A Study of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan." American Sociological Review 50: 38-60.

Lincoln, James R., and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1990. Culture, Control. and Commitment: A Study of Work Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Marsh, Robert M., and Hitoshi Mannari. 1976. Modertiization and the Japanese Factory. Prin- ceton University Press.

Murray, Michael A.. and Tom Atkinson. 1981. "Gender Differences in Correlates of Job Satisfaction." Canadian Jounlal of Behavioral Science 13: 44-52.

Naoi. Michiko & Schooler. Carmi. (1 990). "Psychological consequences of occupational conditions among Japanese wives." Social Psychology Quarterly 53. 100-1 16.

Whitehill. Arthur M., and Shin'ichi Takezawa. 1968. The Other Worker: A Comparative Sfzidy of Industrial Retations in the U.S. and Japan. East-West Center Press.

Wood, Stephen. 1989. "The Japanese management model: tacit skills in shop floor participation." Work and Occupations 16: 446-460.

Worthy, James C. 1950. 'Organizational structure and employee morale." Americun Sociolo- gical Review 18: 169.179.

Tetsushi Fujimoto is an Assistant Professor at Nanzan University.

- 73 -

Documents

Gender Differences in Attitudes Towards Work Group in the United States and Japan