GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION STYLES

AMONG EMPLOYEES OF SERVICE SECTOR: AGE, GENDER

AND INDIVIDUAL’S EDUCATION

Bushra Tabassum
Foundation University, Islamabad. Pakistan
bushra_shahpk@yahoo.com,bushrashahpk@gmail.com
&
Noor ul Islam
Foundation University, Islamabad. Pakistan
noor.mpa@gmail.com, noor_mpa@yahoo.co.uk
&
Muhammad Iqbal Saif
Director, Management Science Department, Foundation University, Islamabad.
drmisaif@gmail.com

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to analyze the effects of age, gender, and individual’s education on
the rhetorical sensitivity level of the employees of service sector. The study takes into account age,
gender, and individual’s education as independent variables while rhetorical sensitivity of employees
as dependent variable. For this study, a total sample size of 1002 was selected out of which 518
respondents were male employees and 484 respondents were female employees, selected from
different banks, telecommunication companies, universities and hospitals of Rawalpindi and
Islamabad, Pakistan. The required data were collected through Rhetsen scale. The findings of the
study can be utilized on three fronts. First, the study will provide a basis for understanding to the
management of service sector regarding various communication differences based on gender of the
employees and a support for adopting practical measures in this regard, resulting into the
satisfaction and continuous loyalty of the employees with the organization. Second, Employees will
be able to effectively communicate and understand the opposite sex’s style of communication with
this empirical evidence. Third, the results highlight the direction for further research in the area of
gender differences in communication styles among employees of service sector.
Key words: Rhetorical sensitivity, Age, Gender, Individual’s education, Service sector.

Introduction

1
Communication, the transmission of ideas and information from one person to another. Human
communication is used to exchange information and opinion, demonstrate and improve status, and to
express emotions (Narayan, 1999).
Communication is vital to human interaction. Trouble arises when we don’t communicate what we
intend to or we are misunderstood. Communication is a process of achieving shared perceptions and
understanding between people.
All of us have different styles of communicating with other peoples. Our styles depend on a lot of
factors i.e. what is our gender, where we are, where we come from, where we were brought up, our
educational back ground, our age, etc. Generally speaking, men and women talk differently although
there are varying degrees of masculine and feminine speech characteristics in each of us. But men
and women speak in particular ways mostly because those ways are associated with their gender
(Spectrum Virtual University, 2007).

Davis, K. defines communication as, the transfer of information and understanding from one person
to another. It is a way of reaching others with facts, ideas, thoughts, and values. It is a bridge of
meanings among people so that they can share what they feel and know. By using this bridge, a
person can cross safely the river of misunderstanding that sometimes separates people (Chaturvedi,
& Chaturvedi, 2005).

Every race, culture, civilization, and society in this world shares two things in common: the presence
of both the male and female sex, and the need to communicate between the two. Men and women
communicate in different ways, about different things, and for different reasons (Free-essays.us,
2007).

A deeper awareness of how differently men and women communicate is necessary in order to
prevent these gender differences from leading to resentment, decreased productivity and workplace
stress. Having a deeper awareness of gender differences will help you increase understanding,
decrease tension and improve teamwork (Stern, 2004).

According to Norton (1983), when we work with someone of the opposite gender and he or she does
something that seems a bit strange, we often become intolerant and defensive. We do not realize that
men and women come from different cultures, even if they are raised in the same homes, educated in

2
the same schools and live in the same country. Sometimes the tendency for women to associate with
one style and men to associate with the other leads to misunderstandings.

Men use talk to emphasize status, while women use it to create connection. Women speak and hear a
language of connection and intimacy; men speak and hear a language of status, power, and
independence (Schneider, 2003).
According to Tannen, at work place women uses rapport talk, make requests, use more questions,
use more justify, they talk about relationships, feelings and people. They are commonly found an
expressive style, focuses on the ability to express emotions, more likely to be sensitive to other’s
feelings, during conflicts, more likely to engage in negative behaviors such as strong negative
feelings, guilt manipulation and verbal attacks. While men uses report talk, give directives and
orders, ask questions to gain information, uses powerful language, they talk about doing things or
how to get things done and about business and news. They are commonly found to use an
instrumental style, focuses on finding solutions to conflicts and on reaching practical goals, during
conflict, more likely to stay calm and problem oriented to find compromise solutions. Women tend
to collect facts about family & friends and men tend to collect data on famous people, political and
sports figures (Tannen, 2007).
Style is the result of the way we select and arrange words and sentences. People choose different
words to express their thoughts, and every individual has a unique verbal style. Not only do styles
vary among people but also each person uses different styles to suit different situations(Norton,
1978).
Coates (1986) studied men only and women-only discussion groups and found that women when
talking to each other they reveal a lot about their private lives. They also stick to one topic for long
times. Men, on the other hand, rarely talked about their personal relationships and feelings but
competed to prove themselves better informed about current affairs, travel, sport, etc.
Both men and women have a lot to offer and can contribute a lot if we look at these strengths and use
them, Girls are taught that they must relate to others in order to survive, while boys are taught that
they must compete with others to survive. That basic difference in our orientation to others, she
explained, colors all aspects of communication, from the purpose of conversation, to one's body
language, to the kind of humor people think is funny. The purpose of conversing with others, for
3
example, is often quite different for women than for men, according to Ragan. Women talk about
people and feelings to enhance personal interaction, Men talk about things and activities to gain
information. Therefore, disclosure of personal information in the workplace often has a dramatically
different effect on men than on women. To women, revealing information about themselves is a way
of establishing a connection with their colleagues. Men, on the other hand, often see such disclosure
as unnecessary, inappropriate, or even threatening (Ragan, 1993).
From a very early age, males and females are taught different linguistic practices. Communicative
behaviors that are acceptable for boys, for example, may be considered completely inappropriate for
girls. Hence, the body of research on women and language reveals that women experience linguistic
discrimination in two ways: in the way they are taught to use language, and in the way general
language usage treats them (Lakoff, 1975).

Men are Direct and Women are Indirect, Men are more Boasting and Women are more Retiring,
Men apologize less than Women, Men employ Teasing Criticism and Women employ Sincere
Praise, Men appear Confident and Women ask Questions, Men are more “Assumptive” and Women
are more “Thanking” in their communication styles, Men engage in Ritual Fighting and Women in
Ritual Smoothing, Men move conversations toward Conclusion and Women Explore in conversation
(Laura, 2007).

The study
The objective of this paper is to analyze the effects of age, gender and individual’s education on the
rhetorical sensitivity level of the employees of service sector. The study takes into account age,
gender and individual’s education as independent variables while rhetorical sensitivity of employees
as dependent variable.

Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference between the age of the employees of service
sector and their rhetorical sensitivity.

4
Null Hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference between the gender of the employees of service
sector and their rhetorical sensitivity.
Null Hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference between the individual’s education of the
employees of service sector and their rhetorical sensitivity.
Alternative Hypothesis 1: There is no any significant difference between the age of the employees of
service sector and their rhetorical sensitivity.
Alternative Hypothesis 2: There is no any significant difference between the gender of the employees
of service sector and their rhetorical sensitivity.
Alternative Hypothesis 3: There is no any significant difference between the individual’s education
of the employees of service sector and their rhetorical sensitivity.

The Tool
The data was collected with the help of Rhetsen scale (Hart, Carlson, & Eadie; 1980). The Rhetsen
scale developed by Hart, Carlson & Eadie (1980) assesses rhetorical sensitivity of individuals. The
scale consists of 28 statements. The Rhetsen scale is a 5-point likert type scale. Scale in which
included independent variables (Age, Gender and Individual’s Education) and dependent variable
(Rhetorical sensitivity of employees). The dependent variable was measured with 28 items covering
the most relevant dimensions of rhetorical sensitivity.
Reliability of Rhetsen Scale: Hart, Carlson, and Eadie, W. F. (1980) report an "acceptable" alpha
reliability of ( = .76) and a test-retest reliability of ( r = .84).
This scale when analyzed for reliability through SPSS, showed the high reliability values i.e. 0.84.
After having satisfaction for the questionnaire as a reliable tool, it was distributed for data collection.

Methodology
For this study, a total sample size of 1002 was selected out of which 518 respondents were male
employees and 484 respondents were female employees, selected from different Universities, Banks,
Hospitals and Telecommunication companies working in Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan.

5
The required data were collected through Rhetsen scale (Hart, Carlson, & Eadie; 1980). The
questionnaires were got filled from the respondents on the spot to facilitate them to comprehend it, if
they asked for some clarification.
The questionnaire was designed to tap four variables, first, second and third variables i.e. “age”,
“gender” and “parental education” were measured on nominal scale, and the fourth variable
“Rhetorical sensitivity” was measured by applying its operational definition, so questions 1 to 28
were asked for this purpose. A pretest was conducted in which 50 questionnaires were got filled to
check the effectiveness of the questionnaire and the ability of respondents to understand the
questions. Most of the questions were asked on five point Likert scale.

Results and Discussions

To test the hypotheses, statistical tests were applied using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). Hypotheses were analyzed by applying the independent sample t-test analysis.
The results generated by SPSS are shown in the following tables.

6
Table 1:

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
RS Equal variances assumed 1.136 .287 -2.885 1000 .004 -8.31E-02 2.88E-02 -.14 -2.66E-02
Equal variances not assumed -3.383 145.052 .001 -8.31E-02 2.46E-02 -.13 -3.46E-02

Table 1 shows the significant difference between age of the respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity of employees of service sector. The

table indicates that there is significant difference i.e. .004. Since the significance difference in this table is less than .05, there is a strong

significant difference between the two variables. Therefore, the result indicates that the there is a strong significant difference for age of

respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity of employees of service sector.

7
Table 2

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
RS Equal variances assumed 16.636 .000 1.705 1000 .088 3.03E-02 1.78E-02 -4.57E-03 6.52E-02
Equal variances not assumed 1.691 914.149 .091 3.03E-02 1.79E-02 -4.86E-03 6.55E-02

Table 2 shows the significant difference between gender of the respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity of employees of service sector. The

table indicates that there is significant difference i.e. .088. Since the significance difference in this table is greater than .05, there is not a

strong significant difference between the two variables. Therefore, the result indicates that the there is not any strong significant difference for

gender of respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity of employees of service sector.

8
Table 3

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
RS Equal variances assumed .414 .520 .261 1000 .794 4.65E-03 1.78E-02 -3.04E-02 3.97E-02
Equal variances not assumed .262 993.576 .793 4.65E-03 1.78E-02 -3.02E-02 3.95E-02

Table 3 shows the significant difference between education of the respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity of employees of service sector.

The table indicates that there is no significant difference i.e. .794. Since the significance difference in this table is greater than .05, there is not

a strong significant difference between the two variables. Therefore, the result indicates that the there is not any strong significant difference

for education of respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity of employees of service sector.

9
The Findings and Conclusions

Table 1 indicates that there is significant difference between the age of the respondents and
their rhetorical sensitivity. Therefore our Null Hypothesis 1 is accepted for this study.

Table 2 indicates that there is no any strong significant difference between the gender of the
respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity. Therefore, our Alternative Hypothesis 2 is accepted
for this study.

Table 3 indicates that there is no any strong significant difference between the education of the
respondents and their rhetorical sensitivity. Therefore, our Alternative Hypothesis 3 is accepted
for this study.

The findings of the study can be utilized on three fronts. First, the study will provide a basis for
understanding to the management of service sector regarding various communication
differences based on gender of the employees and a support for adopting practical measures in
this regard, resulting into the satisfaction and continuous loyalty of the employees with the
organization. Second, employees will be able to effectively communicate and understand the
opposite sex’s style of communication with this empirical evidence. Third, the results highlight
the direction for further research in the area of gender differences in communication styles
among employees of service sector.

References:
Chaturvedi, P.D. & Chaturvedi, M. (2005). Nature and Process of Communication. Business
Communication. Pearson Education. Singapore.

Coates, J. (1986). “Gossip revisited: language in all female groups”. In Coates, J. & Comermon, D
(eds.), women in their speech communities. New York: longman.

Davis. K, . “Human Behavior at work”. In “Business Communication”. Pearson Education.

Free-essays.us. (2007). Gender Differences in Communication. Retrieved August12, 2007. From:

http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/d6/xaj44.shtml

10
Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., & Eadie, W. F. (1980). “Rhetsen scale: Attitudes toward communication
and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity”. Communication Monographs, 47, 1-22. Retrieved from:
http://www.concentric.net/~creyn266/COMM499/Rhetsenexmple.htm

Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language & women’s place. New York: Harper & Row Inc.

Laura V. Page. Bringing Martians and Venutians back to Earth. Retrieved: August12, 2007. From
http://www.tops.org/ReadArticle.asp?articleId=1284&siteHelp=Y

Narayan, B. (1999). Communication Concepts. Communication Management. A.P.H. Publication

Corporation. New Delhi.

Norton, D., (1983). Gender and Communication—Finding Common Ground. Retrieved August12,
2007. From: http://www.uscg.mil/leadership/gender.htm

Norton (1978). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication
behavior and student learning. Communication Education, 377-392.

Ragan, R. S. (1993). Communication: Men and women have different styles. Vol. 12, No.
34,Page8.Retrieved August11, 2007.From: http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/93/34/8.html

Schneider, J. (2003). Communication. Retrieved August11, 2007. From:

Source: http://www.articletrader.com

Spectrum Virtual University. (2007). Gender Differences in Communication. Retrieved August22,

2007. From: http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/2052/genddiff.html

Stern, N. (2004). Gender Jive: Communication Between Men and Women. Retrieved August13, 2007.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nancy_Stern

Tannen, D. (1994). “You just don’t Understand: Women & Men in conversation”. New York: Marrow.

11
Tannen, D. (2007). Gender and Language. Retrieved August13, 2007. From:

http://members.tripod.com/nwacc_communication/id2.htm

12