Art:10 1023/A:1014313732152

P1: FPX/FJT/GXN/HGI P2: HDT/GAP QC: GDR/FXP
Sex Roles [sers] PP380-366659 February 7, 2002 14:47 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Sex Roles, Vol. 45, Nos. 5/6, September 2001 (
C
2002)
Gender Differences in Managers Conceptions and
Perceptions of Commitment to the Organization
David M. Porter Jr.
1
University of California, Los Angeles
This study explored the effect of gender on managers conceptions and per-
ceptions of those behaviors seen as demonstrating commitment to the organ-
ization. Three major ndings are reported: (1) female managers and male
managers with families evaluated traditional commitment behaviors as less
indicative of commitment than their single male counterparts; (2) managers
conceptions of behaviors indicative of commitment conformed to the views of
the majority gender within their work-group; and (3) managers perceptions
of commitment were not affected by gender-based in-group biases.
The increasing diversity in the work-force population concomitantly in-
creases the opportunities for misperceptions among workers. Research has
shown that an individuals perceptions of another are affected by factors
such as group identication (Brickson, 2000; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood,
& Sherif, 1961; Thomas & Gabarro, 1999), communication style (Kochman,
1981), and social identity characteristics (Deschamps, 1982; Murrell, 1998;
Reeder, 1985; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Wharton, 1992). In their review of pre-
vious research, Nieva and Gutek (1981) summarized the types of situations
that are subject to pro-male evaluation bias: situations that are characterized
by (1) considerable ambiguity, (2) the presence of competent women or sex-
inappropriate contexts, or (3) sex-role-incongruent behaviors. The curent
research sought to identify the ways in which gender affects managers con-
ceptions and perceptions of commitment to the organization.
Much of the research concerning female managers has compared them
tomalemanagers, withtheassumptionthat anydifferences discoveredwould
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed at The Anderson Graduate School of Manage-
ment, University of California, P.O. Box 951481, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, California
90095-1481; e-mail: david.porter@anderson.ucla.edu.
375
0360-0025/01/0900-0375/0
C
2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
376 Porter
help to explain why women receive lower organizational rewards (i.e., pay,
promotion, andtrainingopportunities) thantheir malecounterparts (Marini,
1989). The presence of a gender-based discrepancy is indicated by research
that has reported little difference in managerial style between men and
women (Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Norcraft & Gutek, 1993). Although some
of the disparities in organizational rewards might be due to the different
demands our society places on women and men (Pleck, 1985; Reskin &
Hartmann, 1986), it has not been established that all of the disparities can
be explained in this manner. If social identity theorists are correct, another
important source of gender-related differences in bestowal of rewards is that
women are perceived differently even when performing similar actions. Al-
though Tajfel (1972, 1978) has documented the tendency of individuals to
show in-group favoritism, research is still needed to identify which specic
categories of situations, actions, and behaviors within organizations elicit
this phenomenon.
Although it has been established that men and women experience simi-
lar levels of organizational commitment (Marsden, Kalleberg, &Cook, 1993;
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Powell, 1990), it has also been reported that female
managers are often perceived as being less committed to the organization
than their male counterparts (Bailyn, 1993; OReilly, 1983; Voydanoff, 1987).
Commitment was selected as a useful construct on which to base this study
because it can be correlated with subjects social identity characteristics and
perceptions and it is organizationally important. Commitment is linked to
lower absenteeism (Angle & Perry, 1981), lower turnover rates (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982; Steers, 1977), and increased intention to stay with
the rm (Aryee & Heng, 1990). In addition, the very ambiguity inherent
in determining the level of commitment provides an opportunity for any
gender-based biases to be displayed.
This research focused on expanding our understanding of how gender
affects managers perceptual processes in organizations. Managers perceive
their subordinates actions and interpret their communications through their
own conceptual lters. This study sought to identify which behaviors man-
agers interpret as signs of commitment and if the gender of both manager
and subordinate affected the perception of these behaviors.
This research has made three central contributions:
1. It has documented empirically some of the behaviors that managers
interpret as indicative of their subordinates level of commitment to
the rm.
2. It has documented that male and female managers have different
conceptions of which behaviors are indicative of commitment.
3. It has explored the effect that the proportion of women in the
work-group has on managers perceptions of commitment behaviors.
Managers Gender and Conceptions and Perceptions of Commitment 377
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory provides a framework for understanding the pos-
sible biases and inaccuracies that can occur when managers evaluate their
subordinates level of commitment. Social identity is dened as the indi-
viduals knowledge that he [or she] belongs to certain social groups together
with some emotional and value signicance to him [or her] of the group
membership (Tajfel, 1972, p. 31). According to social identity theory, one
way individuals make sense of their world is by categorizing themselves and
others based on their personal group memberships. We each belong to var-
ious social groups, which become more or less salient depending upon the
social context and the characteristics of the individuals involved (Brewer &
Gardner, 1996; Nkomo&Cox, 1996). Commonsocial identitygroups include
race, gender, and age.
Social identity affects individual perceptions in two specic ways. First,
social identity engenders in-group favoritism, causing individuals to per-
ceive actions performed by in-group members in a more positive light than
those performed by out-group members (Tajfel, 1972, 1978). Second, social
identity-based groups exert pressure on their members to conform to the
norms and beliefs of the group as a whole (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
In-group Favoritism
Individuals . . . perceived to be in the same category tend to be liked
better and evaluated more positively than those perceived to be in the out-
group, all else being equal. This implies that assessments of co-workers,
subordinates, and others in the organization are likely to be mediated by
perceivers classicationschemes (Wharton, 1992, p. 66). Inmost situations,
individuals enhance their own sense of identity and self-esteem by making
comparisons with members of other social identity groups. When individ-
uals make comparisons based on characteristics for which their group can
be evaluated more favorably, they exert in-group favoritism. This in-group
favoritism has been shown to negatively affect how out-groups are eval-
uated (Diehl, 1990; Hewstone & Jaspars, 1982; Sherif et al., 1961; Tajfel,
1972). Because gender is a salient identity for most people in the United
States (Webster &Foschi, 1988), I expected study participants to experience
gender-based in-group bias.
Hypothesis 1. Managers evaluating employees level of commitment to the
organization will experience gender-based in-group favoritism that will
positively bias their evaluations of same-sex subordinates.
378 Porter
Conformity to Group Norms and Beliefs
Social identity theory also addresses howindividuals beliefs are shaped
by the groups to which they belong. An individuals identication with a
particular social group involves more than merely an external acknowledg-
ment of afliation; this external acknowledgment is based on an internalized
cognitive representation of the group. Intragroup conformity refers to the
process by which individuals seek to make their self-image consistent with
these cognitive representations of the group (Hogg & Turner, 1987); in turn,
this process of aligning self-image with the chosen group-image shapes their
values, beliefs, andcausal understandings of the worldandthe people around
them. Although there are a number of groups with which an individual can
identify (Alderfer & Smith, 1982), for simplicity this research focused on
only two: work-group identity (i.e., the manager and his or her subordinates)
and gender identity.
Traditional Behaviors Indicative of Commitment
There is little empirical research documenting the specic behaviors
that are perceived as conveying commitment to an organization. Most re-
search on organizational commitment focuses on respondent attitudes, such
as turnover intentions and feelings of belonging, and the organizational an-
tecedents and consequences associated with these attitudes (Aryee &Heng,
1990; Chusmir, 1982, 1986; Gray, 1989; Meyer & Allen, 1990; Mowday et al.,
1982). However, since this type of research relies on self-reports, it can only
address how much commitment to the organization a respondent feels; it
cannot address the issue of howmanagers evaluate commitment within their
subordinates. Because managers rarely give their subordinates survey instru-
ments, such as the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday,
Steers, & Porter, 1979), they must infer their subordinates level of commit-
ment based upon their perceptions of their subordinates behaviors, which
are affected by their (the managers) beliefs and expectations.
Feldman (1984) proposed that these beliefs and expectations about nor-
mative work behavior develop over time within organizations in a number
of ways: via explicit statements made by supervisors, through critical events
in a groups history, as a product of primacy (i.e., the rst pattern that occurs
in the group), and as carry-over standards from past situations. Norms serve
a dual function of describing which behaviors and meanings are acceptable,
and which are expected of group members (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Stang,
1972).
In the past, women were not in a position to affect norm develop-
ment in the workplace because they were not present in signicant numbers
in management. Womens historical underrepresentation in management
means that the norms dening which behaviors are accepted and expected
were established by a group (i.e., men) who no longer represent the work
force as a whole. Managerial positions, in the past, were designed for sin-
gle men(or menwhocouldfunctionat workas if they were single). Managers
had to be able to work long hours, travel when needed, and relocate
(OReilly, 1983); in other words, they had to dedicate their lives to the organ-
ization. In traditional marriages meeting these demanding work require-
ments was accomplished by the wife providing full-time household support
while the husband focused on his career (Rice, 1979; Voydanoff, 1987).
Signicant research studying the antecedents and consequences of self-
reported organizational commitment has been conducted (Allen & Meyer,
1990; Koberg & Chusmir, 1989; Aranya, Kushnir, & Valency, 1986; Marsden
et al., 1993). In addition, research investigating the consequences of behav-
ioral commitment has addressed the effect the self-evaluation of ones own
work-related behavior has on ones commitment to the organization (Kline
&Peters, 1991; Salancik, 1977). However, neither body of research has iden-
tied the behaviors that managers pay attention to in order to determine
whether a subordinate is committed or not. This previous research is based
on questionnaires designed to determine a workers level of commitment to
the organization and not on the level of commitment the workers manager
believes the worker actually experiences. This distinction is critical, because
it is the managers perception of commitment that may affect whether a
worker receives promotion, training, or other organizational opportunities.
As the starting point for exploring whether men and women attribute
different levels of commitment to the same behaviors, depending on the
gender of the person performing the behavior, this study used the so-called
traditional indicators of commitment previously identied: working long
hours, giving work top priority, and socializing with coworkers (Bailyn, 1993;
OReilly, 1983). Conversely, allowing family roles to conict with work re-
sponsibilities has been identied as indicative of lower levels of commitment
(Gilbert, 1985; OReilly, 1983). The common theme underlying these prized
commitment behaviors is self-sacrice on behalf of the rm, which is consis-
tent with Beckers concept of commitment (Becker, 1960).
Performing these traditional behaviors would naturally be easiest for
individuals who have exible schedules and minimal external commitments
(Bailyn, 1993). Women with families are more likely to be less exible be-
cause they are more likely to be responsible for most of the household work
and child-rearing duties (Gilbert, 1985; Hochschild, 1997; Pleck, 1985). It
seems reasonable to expect that managers who are unable to display com-
mitment along traditional lines would value these behaviors less than man-
agers who have the necessary exibility. Even single women who currently
380 Porter
have no family responsibilities may reect this bias, because many may have
the expectation that they will one day experience workfamily conicts.
Furthermore, as more men are required to bear a greater share of the
work and child care at home (Hochschild, 1997), it is reasonable to expect
that they, too, will experience greater workfamily conicts. This increase
in extra-organizational demands may alter their understandings of which
behaviors indicate commitment to the organization. These dynamics lead to
the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 2A. Compared to males, females are less likely to view tradi-
tional commitment behaviors (e.g., working long hours or travelling when
needed) as signs of commitment.
Hypothesis 2B. Comparedtomanagers without families, managers withfam-
ilies are less likely to view traditional commitment behaviors (e.g., work-
ing long hours or travelling when needed) as signs of commitment.
Work-Group Demographics
Work-group demographics have been shown to affect a number of
organizational- and individual-level phenomena (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade,
& Neale, 1998; Ely, 1994; OReilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Tsui, Egan,
& OReilly, 1992). The meanings attributed to specic behaviors are de-
termined by the norms present in the work-group. Although norms are the
product of past experiences, understandings, andbehaviors (Feldman, 1984),
it is conceivable that as a work-groups demographics change, its norms
would also change. Sherif (1935, 1936) argued that group norms represent
the convergence to the mean of individual attitudes. In general, individu-
als tend to conform to group norms (Asch, 1951, 1956; Deutsch & Gerard,
1955), especially when the individuals are members of a relatively lowstatus
group (Raven & French, 1958; Stang, 1972) or when they are in a signi-
cant numerical minority (Asch, 1952; Mann, 1977; Stang, 1976). However,
it has also been demonstrated that group norms have a self-perpetuating
quality that endures after the original members have left (Roher, Baron,
Hoffman, & Swander, 1954). This asset of endurance implies that any shifts
in group demographics may elicit changes in group norms; however, these
shifts do not occur instantaneously.
Theconcept of relational demography(Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui &OReilly,
1989) provides a framework for assessing the demographic differences in
work-groups as well as a numerical measurement that includes work-group
proportions of the factor under study and work-group size. This measure-
ment has central signicance because the social psychological effects of
groups on individuals are determined by both group proportions and group
size. Thus one woman in a work-group with three men would be expected
to conform to group norms more than if she were part of a work-group
composed of herself and 30 men. The relational demographic scores in this
example would be 0.87 and 0.99, respectively. The specic formula used is
presented in the method section.
Hypothesis 2A predicted that women will evaluate traditional behav-
iors as less indicative of commitment than their male counterparts. Given
that gender-related work-group proportions affect the norms of the indi-
viduals involved (Kanter, 1977b), it is expected that respondents in female-
dominated work-groups will conform to the female majority, at least par-
tially, and evaluate traditional behaviors as less indicative of commitment
than their counterparts in male-dominated work-groups. Similarly, in male-
dominated work-groups respondents are expected to evaluate traditional
behaviors as highly indicative of commitment. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Respondents perceptions of commitment to traditional be-
haviors will decrease as the proportion of women in the work-group
increases.
Summary
Figure 1 provides a visual representationof the structural, social psycho-
logical, and individual factors that affect perceptions of commitment within
the work context. In general, the greater society denes which behaviors are
more or less indicative of commitment. Perceptions of commitment based
on these traditional behaviors are then shaped by at least three additional
factors:
1. gender, which affects how in-group and out-group members are
viewed, to the degree to which in-group favoritism is operating;
2. family status, since managers conformto the views of identity groups
in which they are a member, at least to some extent; and
3. work-group demographics, since managers conform to the views of
the majority, at least to some extent.
These three factors interact simultaneously to affect how individuals per-
ceive and evaluate commitment. This research is designed to analyze the
component parts of this process so that it can be better understood.
If perceptual biases generally affect perceptions of commitment in the
work context, the consequences would be signicant. Because management-
level perceptions of worker commitment are correlated with important
work-related rewards, ultimately such biases are likely to affect who receives
382 Porter
Fig. 1. Overview of factors that affect managers conceptions and perceptions of
commitment.
training, desirable work assignments, and career advancement opportunities
(OReilly, 1983). Although the model presented here explores solely how
gender affects managers perceptions of commitment, it is my belief that a
similar pattern exists for many managerial perceptions about their subordi-
nates in relation to other social identity characteristics (e.g., race) and other
organizationally relevant attitudes (e.g., honesty).
METHOD
Design
I used the factorial survey approach for this study because it combines
qualities of multivariate designs with survey research techniques. On the
basis of the premise that individuals have relatively consistent rules for mak-
ing judgments and that these rules are socially structured (Rossi & Nock,
1982), the factorial survey approach facilitates the identication of factors
that inuence individual judgments. First, the researcher identies dimen-
sions (i.e., behaviors, actor characteristics, etc.) and the various levels in-
cluded in each dimension (such as sex or marital status) that might affect the
particular judgment (i.e., level of commitment). The interaction of all pos-
sible permutations of each dimension with the judgment being researched
forms the factorial object universe. Either all of the elements of a relatively
small factorial object universe, or a subset thereof, can be given to respon-
dents for evaluation.
Using the hypotheses formulated for this research project, the process
of attributingaparticular level of commitment toanindividual canbebroken
downintofour components: thegender andfamilystatus of themanager (i.e.,
observer), and the gender and behavior of the subordinate (i.e., actor). The
factorial object universe contains three dimensions: the sex of the actor in
the vignette, the family status (i.e., the marital status and number of children
of the actor), and the behavior of the actor within the vignette. (See Table I
for a list of the levels of the dimensions and a sample vignette.)
The commitment behaviors selected came from two sources: (1) those
mentioned in previous research that dened traditional behaviors and be-
haviors that conicted with family responsibilities (Bailyn, 1993; OReilly,
1983; Voydanoff, 1987); and (2) behaviors mentioned in informal interviews
of eight people who were asked, How do people display their commitment
to the organization? Table I includes those behaviors used in this study and
the alpha coefcients for each construct, based on the rating of commitment
attributed to each of the variations presented. The vignettes were three to
ve lines long.
I chose tobase the vignettes onthe limitedavailable researchonpercep-
tions of commitment andoninformal interviews, as opposedtoattempting to
translate the concepts that underlie the self-reported commitment research
(e.g., Kline & Peters, 1991; Meyer & Allen, 1990) into behaviors, because I
did not want my own preconceptions to adversely affect the behaviors used
in this analysis. Because the organizational commitment research is based
Table I. Factorial Survey Dimensions and Levels
Dimension A. Sex (as conveyed by the name in the vignette
a
)
1. Male
2. Female
Dimension B. Actor behavior and alpha coefcients
1. <Name> is always interested in going out with (his or her) colleagues after work, even
on the spur of the moment (OReilly, 1983); Coefcient alpha = 0.78.
2. <Name> has relocated twice in the past 5 years. (She or He) is willing to relocate again,
if necessary (OReilly, 1983; Voydanoff, 1987); Coefcient alpha = 0.90.
3. <Name> regularly works over 60 hr a week although (he or she) is not required to do so
(Bailyn, 1993; OReilly, 1983; Voydanoff, 1987); Coefcient alpha = 0.85.
4. <Name> has not taken any vacation or sick days in the last year (Informal interviews);
Coefcient alpha = 0.79.
5. <Name> accepts (her or his) job assignments enthusiastically (Kanter, 1968); Coefcient
alpha = 0.81.
6. <Name> is very ambitious and has repeatedly expressed interest in being selected for
the accelerated management program (Informal interviews); Coefcient alpha = 0.80.
a
Sample vignette: Phyllis is single. She is very ambitious and has repeatedly expressed interest
in being selected for the accelerated management program.
384 Porter
primarily on self-report techniques, it would be difcult to ensure that the
behaviors created on the basis of this research would be consistent with
managers (i.e, the observers) expectations and not the employees (i.e., the
observed) expectations.
Respondents
I interviewed 78 midlevel managers. Midlevel was dened as managers
who supervised other managers: most of the managers were only two or
three levels above line employees. The managers worked at four different
Fortune500companies (atelecommunications company, twocomputer com-
panies, and a manufacturing company), with a minimum of 18 respondents
per company. A corporate representative identied the participants by ran-
domselectionfromeachcompanys employee database (i.e., a short program
was written to randomly identify 50 midlevel male and 50 midlevel female
managers) and asked them to participate voluntarily in a study concerning
managers ideas of commitment. The rst 10 men and rst 10 women man-
agers to agree to participate in each company were selected. I ended up with
78 managers because two managers in one company canceled at the last
minute.
The sample consisted of 36 women and 42 men. Two women refused to
perform the sorting exercise because they said that none of the behaviors
described in the vignettes indicated commitment; they were omitted from
the statistical analysis. There were no signicant differences between men
and women in terms of age, tenure in the organization, marital status, or self-
reported level of commitment as measured by the Organizational Commit-
ment Questionnaire (OCQ). The men, on average, did have more children.
Women scored higher on the Women as Managers Scale (WAMS). There
were no signicant company differences, with the exception of respondent
tenure.
A relational demography score, based on the sex of the respondent
and his or her work-group members (dened as the respondents direct
reports), was calculated. The relational demographic score, as suggested by
Tsui, Egan, and OReilly (1992),
is the squareroot of the summed squared differences between an individual S
i
s value
on a specic demographic variable and the value on the same variable for every
other individual S
j
in the sample for the work unit, divided by the total number
of respondents in the unit (n). The following formula was used for this calculation:
[1/n
(S
i
S
j
)
2
]
1/2
No signicant differences were found based on work-group gender-based re-
lational demographic scores. Table II provides an overviewof the descriptive
statistics.
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
.
M
e
a
n
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
M
e
n
a
W
o
m
e
n
a
t
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
1
2
3
4
F
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
A
g
e
4
1
.
7
0
3
9
.
3
0
1
.
8
2
4
3
.
2
4
1
.
3
5
3
8
.
5
6
3
9
.
1
5
2
.
4
9
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
8
8
.
1
%
7
2
.
2
%
1
.
7
9
8
0
.
0
%
8
5
.
0
%
7
2
.
2
%
8
5
.
0
%
0
.
4
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
8
8
%
5
8
%
9
.
9
2
8
0
.
0
%
7
5
.
0
%
7
7
.
8
%
6
5
.
0
%
0
.
3
2
S
e
x
-
b
a
s
e
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
c
o
r
e
.
2
2
.
2
7
.
6
0
.
1
7
.
3
1
.
2
8
.
2
1
.
7
9
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
c
o
r
e
8
5
.
0
9
8
6
.
9
4
.
7
8
8
8
.
8
8
3
.
4
8
4
.
7
8
6
.
8
1
.
0
4
T
e
n
u
r
e
1
4
.
4
3
1
2
.
2
2
1
.
4
2
1
7
.
9
1
6
.
2
5
7
.
1
7
1
1
.
7
1
2
.
8
4
W
o
m
e
n
a
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
S
c
a
l
e
s
c
o
r
e
1
3
3
.
5
2
1
3
8
.
2
2
2
.
2
2
1
3
7
.
9
5
1
3
7
.
0
5
1
3
5
.
6
7
1
3
2
.
1
1
.
3
8
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
4
2
3
6
2
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
a
V
a
l
u
e
s
g
i
v
e
n
a
r
e
m
e
a
n
v
a
l
u
e
s
.
p
<
.
0
5
.
p
<
.
0
0
1
.
386 Porter
Instruments
I created 42 written vignettes that described behaviors representative
of various combinations of the dimensions listed in Table I. These vignettes
were divided into two groups by the sex of the actor in each vignette. Both
groups of vignettes were given to respondents, who were asked to sort
themintonine categories using a modiedQ-sorting technique (Stephenson,
1953). First respondents were asked to divide the vignettes into three
categories according to the organizational commitment the respondents per-
ceived in the description of actors behaviors: average, above average, and
exceptional. Each of the three groups was then subdivided into three groups,
again using the same criteria, giving a total of nine groupings. These group-
ings were translated into a 9-point scale, with 1 representing the least com-
mitment and 9 the most commitment. The one modication to the traditional
Q-sorting process was that respondents were encouraged (but not required)
to place vignettes into each category.
This instrument (ctional vignettes) was used for three reasons. First,
it would have been difcult to obtain evaluations of commitment for spe-
cic individuals within a rm because of concerns about condentiality.
Second, interpersonal and intercompany comparisons would have been dif-
cult without some common point of reference for each respondent. Third,
the factorial design allows discrimination among the various dimensions
embedded in the vignettes that might affect the respondents perceptions of
commitment.
After the respondents had sorted the rst half of vignettes, they were
asked to ll out the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday
et al., 1979), the Women as Managers Scale (Terborg, Peters, Ilgen, &Smith,
1977), and a basic demographic questionnaire. The OCQcontains 15 Likert-
type items that indicate a self-reported level of commitment to the organi-
zation. A 7-point response format is used, ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. The score represents respondents reported level of com-
mitment to the organization (the higher the score, the higher the level of
commitment). The OCQ has been demonstrated to have a high degree of
testretest and internal consistency reliability (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, &
Warr, 1981). The reliability of the instrument in this study, as measured by
Cronbachs coefcient alpha (Cronbach, 1961), was 0.85.
The WAMS contains 21 Likert-type items, which are phrased to elicit
attitudes toward women as managers in business organizations. A 7-point
response format is used, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
A higher score means that the respondent has a more positive attitude to-
ward women as managers. The reliability of the instrument in this study, as
measured by Cronbachs coefcient alpha (Cronbach, 1961), was 0.78.
The OCQwas administered to ensure that there were no gender-related
differences in self-reported levels of commitment experienced by men and
women within the organization. Because the respondents were selected ran-
domly from the companies employee databases, they can be assumed to be
representative of managers within each company studied. If there had been
a gender-related difference in levels of commitment experienced, the differ-
ence could have impacted managers expectations which, in turn, could have
affected their perceptions. The WAMS was included in order to control for
any biases managers might have concerning the appropriateness of women
serving in managerial roles.
Upon completion of the questionnaires, the respondents sorted the sec-
ondhalf of the vignettes inthe same manner as the rst set. The twoquestion-
naires were administered between the sorting of the rst and second groups
of vignettes to provide some distraction so that the respondents would not
recognize that the two groups were identical except for the sex of the actor
in each vignette. Answering the questionnaires took respondents 17 min on
average. The order of the presentation of the two groups of vignettes was
counterbalanced across subjects to minimize any effect of the intervening
questionnaire. Statistical tests to determine what effect, if any, the inter-
vening questionnaires had on respondents evaluations of the second group
showed that there was no effect. No signicant differences were found in the
mean scores for any of the vignettes, whether they were evaluated before or
after the questionnaires (the relevant t-statistics ranged between 1.25 and
1.49, p > .10).
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using multiple regression techniques; the rating
on the 9-point scale measuring the perceived level of commitment displayed
in the vignette was the dependent variable. Each respondent rated all
42 vignettes, providing a total of 3,192 judgments. Ordinary least squares
regression was used because of its simplicity and the evidence that people
often arrive at overall judgments through an additive process (Anderson,
1974), which suggests the appropriateness of a simple linear model (for a
discussion of the appropriateness of using regression techniques for this
type of analysis, please see Rossi & Nock, 1982). Because this study used
a within-subjects design, the judgments are not truly independent. To test
the impact of this lack of independence, 75 dummy variables (one for each
respondent, except the referent case) were added to the regression. Because
none of these variables was signicant, they were dropped from further
analysis.
388 Porter
Initial regression models were tested for the impact of the control vari-
ables (e.g., age, WAMS score, and company). Two regression models were
developed. The rst was developed to test Hypotheses 1 & 2. The depen-
dent variable was the respondents rating of commitment to the organization
displayed by the actor in the vignette. The model included three blocks of
variables: control variables, dummy variables describing actor behavior, and
explanatory variables. The reference category for the dummy variables de-
scribing actor behavior was socializing with coworkers; this behavior was
chosen as the reference category because it had the lowest level of commit-
ment attributed to it. Explanatory variables were entered into the equation
one at a time and in order of decreasing tolerance.
A second regression model was developed to test Hypothesis 3, which
is based on the idea that managers conceptions of commitment are also
shaped by members of their work-group. The above regression indicates
that women attribute lower levels of commitment than men to actors who
either relocate often or work over 60 hr in a week. Because the respondents
are representative of the managers inthe company as a whole, it is reasonable
to expect that women managers, in general, in the companies studied would
attribute lower levels of commitment to these behaviors than men. With this
as astartingpoint, aregressionmodel was createdtoexaminethecorrelation,
if any, betweentherelational demographyof respondents work-groupbased
on sex and respondents perceptions of commitment to these two behaviors
(relocating and working 60-hr weeks).
The dependent variable was respondents ratings of commitment to the
organizationbasedonthe behaviors describedinthe vignettes, suchas actors
working long hours or relocating often. The model included three blocks
of variables: control variables, actor behaviors, and explanatory variables.
Explanatory variables were entered into the equation one at a time and in
order of decreasing tolerance.
RESULTS
Hypothesis 1 predicted in-group favoritism along gender lines. In other
words, all else being equal, respondents would attribute higher levels of
commitment to vignette actors with whom they shared the same sex. No
support was found for this hypothesis ( = 0.045, p > .10). See Table III
for the regression results.
Hypotheses 2A and 2B predicted that female managers and managers
(either male or female) with families would rate traditional indicators of
commitment less highly than their male or single counterparts. The data
provided partial support for both hypotheses. Women evaluated actors who
Table III. OLS Regression Results for Factors Affecting Respondents Ratings of Commitment
to the Organization
Variables SE
Control variables
Respondents age 0.014
0.005
Company 1 0.030 0.125
Company 2 0.090 0.133
Company 3 0.081 0.122
Company 1 Respondents Sex 0.548
0.173
0.174
Company 3 Respondents Sex 0.020 0.172
Respondents sex (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.328 0.208
Respondents family status 0.028 0.117
(0 = single, 1 = married with children)
Vignette actors sex (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.102 0.074
Difference in sex 0.188 0.383
Difference in sex squared 0.793
0.438
Interaction of respondents sex and difference in sex squared 1.394
0.276
Actor behaviors described in vignettes
Works over 60 hr a week 4.697
0.253
Willingness to relocate 2.941
0.171
Ambitious and interested in accelerated management program 1.983
0.198
No vacation or sick leave for last year 1.457
0.198
Accepts assignments enthusiastically 1.183
0.198
Explanatory variables
Respondents Sex Actors Sex 0.045 0.111
Works over 60 hr a Week Sex 1.179
0.292
Willingness to Relocate Sex 0.743
0.197
Ambitious Sex 0.274 0.230
No Vacation or Sick Leave for Last Year Sex 0.576
0.230
Accepts Assignments Enthusiastically Sex 0.204 0.244
Works over 60 hr a Week Family Status 0.754
0.277
Willingness to Relocate Family Status 0.246 0.187
Ambitious Family Status 0.315 0.218
No Vacation or Sick Leave for Last Year Family Status 0.563
0.217
Accepts Assignments Enthusiastically Family Status 0.150 0.217
Works over 60 hr a Week Sex Family Status 0.137 0.347
Willingness to Relocate Sex Family Status 1.021
0.233
Ambitious Sex Family Status 0.280 0.279
No Vacation or Sick Leave for Last Year Sex Family Status 1.259
0.280
Accepts Assignments Enthusiastically Sex Family Status 0.516
0.347
Constant 1.340
0.306
R
2
.49388 F 125.51
Adj. R
2
.48994 n 3192
p < .10.

p < .05.

p < .01.

p < .001.
worked longer hours or were willing to relocate less highly than did male
respondents ( = 1.179, p < .001; = 0.743, p < .001). Managers (both
male and female) who were married and had children evaluated actors who
worked long hours or had taken no vacation or sick leave less highly than
390 Porter
Table IV. Summary of the Regression Coefcients of Sex and Family Status on Perceptions of
Commitment, Given the Behavior Described
Family status
Sex (1 = married
(1 = female) with children) Interaction Total
Works over 60 hr a week 1.179
0.754
0.137 2.07
Willingness to relocate 0.743
0.246 1.021
1.518
Is ambitious and enthusiastic 0.274 0.315 0.280 0.309
No vacation or sick leave for 0.576
0.563
1.259 0.120
last year
Accepts assignments 0.204 0.150 0.516
0.162
enthusiastically
p < .10.

p < .05.

p < .01.

p < .001.
singlemanagers or marriedmanagers without children( = 0.754, p < .01;
= 0.563, p < .01). Female managers who were married and had children
evaluated actors who were willing to relocate or had not taken any vacation
less highly than did single managers or married managers without children
( = 1.021, p < .001; = 1.259, p < .001). Table IV summarizes the re-
sults for these hypotheses.
As summarized in Table IV, three of the ve behaviors studied showed
effects in the predicted direction once the effect of the interaction term was
considered. Specically, the behaviors that supported both hypotheses were:
working over 60 hr a week, willingness to relocate, and taking no vacation
or sick leave for the last year.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that as the number of women in the work-group
increases, the level of commitment attributed to traditional behaviors will
decrease when controlling for age, attitudes toward women managers, actor
behavior, and actor sex. Specically, the level of commitment managers at-
tribute to traditional behaviors decreases as the number of women in their
work-group increases. This hypothesis was tested by introducing a relational
demography variable representing the difference in gender between the re-
spondent and each member of his or her work-group, and a variable repre-
senting the interaction of sex and the work-group relational demographic
variable. See Table V for the regression results.
Regression coefcients in Table V for sex ( = 1.368, p < .001), the
relational demographic variable ( = 0.172, p > .10), the square of the re-
lational demographic variable ( = 1.436, p .05), and the interaction
term ( = 2.407, p < .001) offer support for this hypothesis (see Fig. 2 for a
graphic illustration of this relationship).
Finally, the regression analysis in Table III provided information con-
cerning which behaviors were viewed as the strongest indicators of com-
mitment. Each of the behaviors was compared with the reference case of
Table V. The Impact of Work-Group Sex-Based Demography on Perceptions of Traditional
Indicators of Commitment
Variables SE
Control variables
Respondents age 0.024
0.009
Company 1 0.014 0.206
Company 2 0.029 0.219
Company 3 0.070 0.200
0.284
0.286
Company 3 Respondents Sex 0.174 0.281
Respondents sex (0 = male, 1 = female) 1.368
0.305
Respondents family status (0 = single, 1 = married with children) 0.045 0.164
Vignette actors sex (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.127 0.091
Explanatory variables
Difference in sex 0.172 0.628
Difference in sex squared 1.436
0.718
Interaction of respondents sex and difference in sex squared 2.407
0.453
Constant 5.591
0.473
R
2
.15624 F 25.9377
Adj. R
2
.15022 n 1975
p < .05.

p < .01.

p < .001.
Fig. 2. The effect of work-group sex demographics on perceptions of traditional behaviors of
commitment. (As the relational demographic score approaches 1, the work-group sex demo-
graphics are increasingly disparate fromthe respondents sex. For example, if a male respondent
has a relational demographic score of 0, he is a member of an all-male work-group; however,
if a male respondent has a relational demographic score approaching 1, he is a member of a
predominantly female work-group.)
392 Porter
socializing oftenwithcoworkers. Working long hours andwillingness tore-
locate had the greatest effect upon respondents evaluations of commitment.
DISCUSSION
Hypothesis 1
On the basis of social identity theory, I expected that managers would
experience gender-related in-group favoritism, which would lead them to
attribute higher levels of commitment to the subordinates who were of the
samesex. This hypothesis, however, was not supportedbythedata, indicating
that gender-based in-group biases affecting perceptions of commitment may
not be the cause of the inequities cited earlier (e.g., training, salary) between
men and women.
The results seem to be inconsistent with the expectations of in-group
favoritism; however, this seeming contradictioncouldbe the result of contex-
tual factors that were not present in previous studies of in-group favoritism
(Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, &Flament, 1971). Managers perceptions
are shaped by social and organizational contexts that provide meaning to
the behaviors observed. For example, in one of the rms studied, respon-
dents overwhelmingly indicated that quality of performance was the only
meaningful measure of commitment. This type of organizational denition
provides a relatively explicit metric for assessing commitment. In-group fa-
voritismmay be strongest inmore ambiguous situations, where managers are
required to make judgments with incomplete information, providing ample
opportunity for individual biases to be expressed.
In addition, previous studies of this phenomenon often created a com-
petitive (sometimes only minimally competitive) environment in which
favoring members of ones own group carried some advantage (Tajfel, 1978;
Tajfel et al., 1971). In contrast, the present study did not have any obvi-
ous competitive characteristics; no advantages were at stake. The managers
ratings in the experiment provided no benet to anyone else, nor were
there any competitive dynamics: a manager could freely rate a female vi-
gnette as highly as a male vignette with no negative outcome to the respon-
dent or to a member of the appropriate in-group. Thus, at least minimally
competitive forces may be necessary to stimulate the response of in-group
favoritism.
Finally, even the female managers refused to believe that perception of
their commitment would be affected by their gender, and they had no obvi-
ous reasons for denying any bias, if one existed. When asked the question,
Do male and female managers display commitment in the same manner?
77% answered afrmatively.
Of course, it is also possible that in-group favoritism was not displayed
because the manipulation failed. Perhaps the respondents simply ignored
the sex of the actor as conveyed by the name and instead focused on the
behavior. Another possibility is that respondents recognized the purpose of
the research and provided socially desirable responses. However, I rejected
this possibility when follow-up questioning revealed that only eight of the
respondents thought the research was focused on in-group biases. Finally, it
is possible that our societys efforts to minimize the effect of gender-based
discrimination may have had some effect. Clearly, given the empirical sup-
port for in-group favoritism, there is a need for further study using another
research method before a nal determination that gender-based in-group
favoritism does not effect perceptions of commitment.
Hypotheses 2A and 2B
These hypotheses were based on the argument that the traditional indi-
cators of commitment are biased in favor of single male managers and male
managers who can act as if they were single. The hypotheses assumed that
single female managers and male and female managers with families would
value these behaviors less because the behaviors would be more difcult for
them to enact now or in the foreseeable future. This effect was expected
even when controlling for the specic characteristics of the actor described.
The regression analysis supported both hypotheses.
The underlying motive attributed to a given behavior has a signicant
impact on managers responses and the rewards they offer (Eastman, 1994).
It is interesting to note that the most valued behaviors were working long
hours, willingness to relocate, and not taking vacation or sick days. These
behaviors imply, in a relatively unambiguous manner, self-sacrice on behalf
of the rm. Managers who are concerned with the underlying motives for
behaviors can assume that subordinates would not make major sacrices on
behalf of the organization unless they were truly committed.
Although these self-sacricing behaviors may constitute unambiguous
indicators of commitment, single women and managers (both male and fe-
male) with families may anticipate difculty performing these behaviors
because of the extra-organizational responsibilities they hold. This research
implies that therespondents havedevelopedbeliefs that valueself-sacricing
behaviors less because of the difculties these managers currently experi-
ence in displaying themor anticipate experiencing in the future. It is interest-
ing to note that married women with children evaluated actors who accept
394 Porter
their work enthusiastically to be more committed than single male managers
without families. This is consistent with the idea that managers may value be-
haviors more highly on the basis of their own abilities or desires to perform
said behaviors. Expressing enthusiasm about ones work would be one way
that women who cannot work overly long hours, etc., could easily display
their commitment.
This research points to an interesting source of gender differences that
needs further study. If male and female managers viewdifferent behaviors to
beindicators of commitment, theymaymisreadthetruelevel of commitment
experienced by their opposite-sex subordinates not because of in-group fa-
voritism but through misinterpretation of their subordinates behaviors. It
seems reasonable to expect that the behaviors that managers value in their
subordinates would be the same behaviors that they would display to their
superiors (i.e., the behaviors they believe are indicative of commitment).
Thus, both men and women could be acting in ways they believe convey
their level of commitment yet send the wrong signals to supervisors who
have different expectations. These misinterpretations of opposite-sex sub-
ordinate behavior, in turn, could affect their evaluations and disposition of
rewards (i.e., recognition, promotion, etc.).
Hypothesis 3
Work-groupgender demographics didhave a signicant impact onman-
agers perceptions of commitment. Although male managers rated tradi-
tional commitment behaviors more highly than women, this bias was tem-
pered as the number of women in each work-group increased. Conversely,
womens evaluationof traditional indicators of commitment rose as the num-
ber of men in their work-groups increased. If respondents conceptions of
commitment were shaped by the dominant values of their work-group, then
working with a higher percentage of female subordinates likely inuences
both male and female managers to hold less traditional conceptions of which
behaviors indicate commitment.
The effect of work-group structure and social identity characteristics
found in this research may be signicant to individuals interested in diver-
sifying the work force. Because most organizations have higher percent-
ages of men (who tend to value traditional commitment behaviors more
highly) in their upper ranks, we would expect that both male and female
managers would look for the more traditional behaviors of commitment at
the top of the organization, because their work-groups would tend to have
higher proportions of men. Any managers who have a different conception
of which behaviors indicate commitment (i.e., single women and managers
withfamily responsibilities) wouldbe evaluatedas less committedandwould
probably receive less organizational rewards. It is easy to conceptualize this
pattern as a self-perpetuating spiral that preserves the dominance of tra-
ditional commitment behaviors: managers are rewarded based, at least in
part, on their supervisors perception of their level of commitment to the
organization; this differential in rewards received could very well serve as
a disincentive to employees to maintain their level of effort and commit-
ment. Thus, before they reach even moderate levels within the organization,
those who do not display commitment along traditional lines may begin to
showsigns of lower motivation, increasedabsenteeism, andprogressivewith-
drawal from the company. This pattern, in turn, further solidies successful
managers beliefs in the value of traditional behaviors.
CONCLUSION
As we look for factors that would explain gender-based disparities, we
must turn toward the more subtle effects of interpersonal perceptions (Cox,
1993). This study showed that two factors can combine to shape evaluations
of commitment. First, singlefemalemanagers andmaleandfemalemanagers
with families evaluate traditional behaviors differently than their single or
childless married counterparts, even when controlling for the specic behav-
ior described and the individual characteristics of the actor. Second, work-
group gender demographics shape managers beliefs to the degree that man-
agers conform to the beliefs of the majority. The methodology used in this
research constitutes a beginning attempt to operationalize those processes
that operate at the less visible level at which perceptions of commitment are
shaped by social identities.
REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. P., &Smith, K. K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 565.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118.
Anderson, N. H. (1974). Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. H. Krantz,
R. C. Atkinson, R. D., Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in math-
ematical psychology (pp. 236305). San Francisco: Freeman.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 114.
Aranya, N., Kushnir, T., &Valency, A. (1986). Organizational commitment in a male-dominated
profession. Human Relations, 5, 433448.
Aryee, S., & Heng, L. J. (1990). A note on the applicability of an organizational commitment
model. Work and Occupations, 17, 229239.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modication and distortion of judgments.
In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
396 Porter
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: 1. A minority of one against a
unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 10, 516.
Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men and time in the new corporate world.
New York: The Free Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this we?: Levels of collective identity and
self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 8393.
Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational out-
comes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 82101.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling
similar: The inuence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work
processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749780.
Chusmir, L. H. (1982). Job commitment and the organizational woman. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 7, 595602.
Chusmir, L. H. (1986). Gender difference in variables affecting job commitment among work-
ing men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 8794.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A
comparison and review of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press.
Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cronbach, L. J. (1961). Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometriks, 16,
297334.
Deschamps, J. (1982). Social identity and relations of power between groups. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 8597). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational inuences upon
individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 62936.
Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical nd-
ings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 263292). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Dobbins, G. H., &Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: Howreal are they? Academy
of Management Review, 11, 118127.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 13791391.
Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships
among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203238.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. The Academy of
Management Review, 9, 4753.
Gilbert, L. A. (1985). Men in dual-career families: Current realities and future prospects.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gray, D. E. (1989). Gender and organizational commitment among hospital nurses. Human
Relations, 42, 801813.
Hewstone, M., & Jaspars, J. M. F. (1982). Intergroup relations and attribution processes.
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 99127). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). Time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work.
New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes, London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping, and the salience of
social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325340.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mecha-
nisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499517.
Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for
research and policy. New York: Sage.
Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kline, C. J., & Peters, L. H. (1991). Behavioral commitment and tenure of new employees: A
replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 194204.
Koberg, C. S., &Chusmir, L. H. (1989). Relationship between sex-role conict and work-related
variables: Gender and hierarchical differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 779
791.
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mann, S. H. (1977). The use of social indicators in environmental planning. In I. Altman &
J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 2, pp. 307330). New York:
Plenum.
Marini, M. M. (1989). Sex differences in earning in the United States. Annual Review of
Sociology, 15, 343380.
Marsden, P. V., Kalleberg, A. L., & Cook, C. R. (1993). Gender differences in organizational
commitment: Inuences of work positions and family roles. Work and Occupations, 20,
368390.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, corre-
lates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171
194.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization:
Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 710720.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employeeorganization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.
Murrell, A. J. (1998). To identify or not identify: Preserving, ignoring, and sometimes destroying
racial (social) identity. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The
problem and the response (pp. 188201). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York:
Praeger.
Nkomo, S. M., & Cox, T. (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,
& W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbok of organization studies (pp. 338356). London: Sage.
Northcraft, G., & Gutek, B. (1993). Point-counterpoint: Discrimination against women-going,
going, gone, or going but never gone? In E. A. Fagenson (Ed.), Women in management:
trends, issues and challenges in managerial diversity (pp. 219243). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
OReilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social inte-
gration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 2137.
OReilly, W. B. (1983). Where equal opportunity fails: Corporate men and women in dual-career
families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives/working husbands. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Powell, G. N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Powell, G. N. (1990). One more time: Do female and male managers differ? Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 4, 6875.
Raven, R. H., & French, J. R. P. (1958). Legitimate power, coercive power, and observability in
social inuence. Sociometry, 21, 8397.
Reeder, G. D. (1985). Implicit relation between dispositions and behaviors: Effects on dis-
positional attribution. In J. H. Harvay & G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and
applications (pp. 87116). Orlando: Academic Press.
Reskin, B. F., & Hartmann, H. I. (1986). Womens work, mens work: Sex segregation on the job.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rice, D. G. (1979). Dual-career marriage: Conict and treatment. New York: The Free Press.
Roher, J. H., Baron, S. H., Hoffman, E. L., & Swander, D. V. (1954). The stability of autokinetic
judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 5957.
Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors of perception. Archives of Psychology, 27,
160.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Brothers.
398 Porter
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., &Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conict and
cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book
Exchange.
Stang, D. J. (1972). Conformity, ability, and self-esteem. Representative Research in Social
Psychology, 3, 97103.
Stang, D. J. (1976). Group size effects on conformity. Journal of Social Psychology, 98, 175181.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 22, 4656.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization (english manuscript of la categorisation sociale). In
S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la psychologie sociale (pp. 3037), Vol. 1, Paris: Larousse.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and inter-
group behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 14978.
Terborg, J. R., Peters, L. H., Ilgen, D. R., & Smith, F. (1977). Organizational and personal
correlates of attitudes toward women as managers. Academy of Management Journal, 20,
89100.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 7990.
Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority executives in
corporate america. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & OReilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549579.
Tsui, A. S., & OReilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superiorsubordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal,
32, 402423.
Voydanoff, P. (1987). Work and family life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Webster, M., & Foschi, M. (1988). Status generalization: New theory and research. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Wharton, A. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A social
identity and group mobilization perspective. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,
10, 5584.

Art:10 1023/A:1014313732152

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art:10 1023/A:1014313732152

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: FPX/FJT/GXN/HGI P2: HDT/GAP QC: GDR/FXP

You might also like