What Is Important on the Job? Differences Across Gender, Perspective, and Job Level

What Is Important on the Job?Differences Across Gender, Perspective, and Job Level1

Mark C. Frame2 andKatherine J. Roberto

University of Texas at Arlington

Ashleigh E. SchwabOrganizational Wellness and

Learning Systems, Inc.Fort Worth, TX

Celesta Taylor HarrisAlliant International University

The importance ratings of job competency dimensions on a 360-degree feedbackinstrument were examined. We hypothesized that men (incumbents and bosses)would rate agentic behaviors higher in importance than would women, and thatwomen (incumbents and bosses) would rate communal behaviors higher in impor-tance than would men. Differences were found for men and women across ratingsources and across job level (organizational position). The present findings suggestthat men and women incumbents view different factors as important for their jobsand that people in higher level jobs place more importance on agentic behaviors thando those in lower level positions, and people in lower level jobs place more impor-tance on communal behaviors than do those in higher level positions.jasp_562 36..56

Importance ratings are the subjective weighting and evaluation of dif-ferent dimensions of competence related to a job (Rogelberg & Waclawski,2001). They are often collected in conjunction with multisource feedback(i.e., 360-degree feedback) to help the focal person (often called the“target”) set developmental priorities (Dalessio & Vasilopoulos, 2001;Rogelberg & Waclawski, 2001). While multisource feedback has become apopular tool in organizations (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor,1998), there has been limited research on importance ratings in the multi-source feedback context (Church & Waclawski, 1997; Petree-Schatz,Tatney, Shelton, & Frame, 2007; Roberto et al., 2006; Sullivan & Frame,2007; Surley et al., 2006; Zwick, Rollings, & Frame, 2007). Because theseprocesses are often used for leadership development, as performance

1This research would not have been possible without the generous support of PersonnelDecisions International. The authors give special thanks to Jared B. Kenworthy for hisassistance with this project.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark C. Frame, Universityof Texas at Arlington, Department of Psychology, Box 19528, Arlington, TX 76019-0528.E-mail: [email protected]

36

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 40, 1, pp. 36–56.© 2010 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

evaluations (Atwater et al., 1998), and as internal gauges of jobsatisfaction (Inderrieden, Allen, & Keaveny, 2004), systematic bias or dif-ferences in importance ratings in multisource feedback could have a sig-nificant impact on the development and career progression of the focalperson.

The feedback process can provide valuable information to the target andto the organization. However, much like performance ratings (Bartol, 1999)and job analysis ratings (Van Iddekinge, Putka, Raymark, & Edison, 2005),the multisource importance rating process may be influenced by factors suchas gender and organizational position (e.g., manager, director, executive).The present study examines the possibility that rater position, rater gender,and job level affect the importance ratings that people assign to variousperformance factors.

Gender differences in multisource importance ratings are likely, in light ofprevious research findings demonstrating gender differences in effectivenessand performance ratings (e.g., Carli & Eagly, 1999; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Karau, 2002;Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992;Korabik & Ayman, 2007). These findings are generally explained by socialrole theory and gender-based stereotypes that pit expectations of managers/leaders against expectations of women/females. An overview of these theo-retical explanations as they apply to multisource importance ratings isdiscussed in the following sections.

Gender bias can manifest when stereotypical gender-based categoriza-tions are likely to be used in making decisions about individuals’ jobs, per-formance, and development. Social role theorists argue that leaders occupyroles specific to their positions within an organization, while simultaneouslyfunctioning under the constraints of their gender roles (Eagly et al., 2003).Eagly, Wood, and Diekman (2000) contended that the influence of genderroles on organizational behavior occurs because people react to leaders withrespect to gender expectancies, and because the leaders themselves haveinternalized their gender roles. As a result of differing social identities,women and men differ in their expectations of their own behavior in orga-nizational settings (Ely, 1995).

Both men and women tend to associate communal (i.e., selflessness,concern for others) qualities with women and agentic (i.e., self-assertive,independent) qualities with men. Moreover, agentic qualities are typicallyassociated with leader success (Eagly et al., 2003). Korabik and Ayman(2007) argued that because women are required to assimilate into male-dominated settings, women managers tend to exhibit relatively more agenticbehaviors than do women in lower organizational positions. Thus, impor-tance ratings in a multisource feedback process may reflect the raters’

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN IMPORTANCE RATINGS 37

organizational roles and gender roles, as well as their attitudes toward whatis and is not important to the job.

In higher organizational positions, the roles become more ambiguous anddifficult to quantify, making evaluative assessment of them more subjectiveand susceptible to bias. When men occupy higher level positions, the jobrequirements are seen as commensurate with men’s gender roles and stereo-types. Women, however, may perform the same tasks, but be viewed nega-tively because those tasks may be incongruent with the gender stereotypesand roles associated with women. This carryover of gender-based behavioralexpectations into the workplace has been labeled sex-role spillover (Nieva &Gutek, 1982).

Research has been consistent with these theoretical perspectives. Womenare consistently rated higher on emotional attributes, while men are ratedhigher on cognitive ability (Warr & Hoare, 2002). Deaux (1979) found thatmen who evaluated their own performance rated themselves as having greaterability and higher intelligence than did women rating themselves. Using anearly version of the PROFILOR for Executives™, Holt and Mount (1991)found that men’s self-report ratings were higher than were women’s self-reportratings on 20 out of 22 performance dimensions. Women rated themselveshigher than men on only 2 performance dimensions (i.e., Attracting andDeveloping Talent; Adaptability). Men were rated higher by other raters (i.e.,bosses, direct reports, peers) for only one, mathematically related construct,and women were rated higher by others on 12 of the 22 performance dimen-sions (no significant differences were found for 9 of the performance dimen-sions). The performance dimensions on which women were rated higher thanmen were largely interpersonal-oriented and relationship-oriented.

Women are more likely to manage and lead in ways that help others,whereas men are more likely to pursue their own personal ambitions and leadwith a more task-oriented style (Maroda, 2004). Although gender differencesin performance across job domains and competencies have been establishedby previous research, the relative importance of those domains and compe-tencies has not been closely examined in the context of multisource feedback.

Importance Ratings

As noted earlier, multisource feedback ratings often incorporate raters’assessment of the importance of competencies (Rogelberg & Waclawski,2001). These ratings allow the target to gauge their performance against theskills or competencies that are deemed to be important by themselves, theirsubordinates, and their supervisors. Individuals may choose to minimizefuture effort in areas that are not rated as very important, and focus theirenergy on more important dimensions. Although developmental goals and

38 FRAME ET AL.

objectives may be greatly influenced by these importance ratings, very littleresearch has examined the various characteristics that may influence theseratings.

Research on job analysis has focused on relating importance ratings toperformance ratings (Cleveland & Landy, 1981; Waldman, Yammarino, &Avolio, 1990; Wexley & Silverman, 1978). When ratings are collected con-currently, performance ratings are positively correlated with importanceratings across a variety of job skills. Further, this relationship held forincumbent ratings, as well as for supervisors’ ratings (Yammarino &Waldman, 1993). Interestingly, the association between self-ratings of impor-tance and bosses’ ratings of performance were not consistent. Neither werethe correlations between self-ratings of importance and bosses’ ratings ofimportance. Prien, Prien, and Wooten (2003) found that rater tenure affectedimportance ratings, and Van Iddekinge et al. (2005) demonstrated that orga-nizational level was associated with differences in importance ratings.

It is likely that people rate experiences, skills, and abilities that theypossess as more important than skills and abilities that they do not possess.Previous research has partially supported this idea (Sczesny, 2003). Both menand women participants (management students) reported possessing task-oriented skills, and women reported possessing person-oriented skills morethan did men. Male participants rated person-oriented skills as less importantfor leaders in general, whereas female participants rated both task- andperson-oriented skills as being important for leaders in general (Sczesny,2003). Wendong, Kan, Hongyan, Juan, and Min (2006) showed that the taskperformance of editors was positively associated with the importance that theeditors ascribed to those same tasks.

Clearly, a myriad of factors may influence multisource importanceratings. In the present study, we examine the degree to which gender andorganizational position are associated with importance ratings across severaldimensions. Our hypotheses consider and integrate both social role theoryand previous empirical findings regarding perspective, experience, and skillson importance ratings.

Hypotheses

This study examines the differences between the importance ratings givenby men and women across different perspectives (viz. incumbents andbosses). In the light of research demonstrating that people tend to rate skillsthey possess as more important (Sczesny, 2003), we hypothesize that men(across perspective) will tend to rate agentic behaviors as more importantthan will women, and that women (across perspective) will tend to ratecommunal behaviors as more important than will men. We expect to find


differences across perspectives in the degree to which bosses and incumbentsrate agentic and communal behaviors as important. While incumbents mustaccomplish the tasks of their jobs while working with their supervisors andtheir direct reports, bosses must work with their supervisors, manage theirdirect reports, and manage their indirect reports (i.e., those who do notreport directly to them).

Because bosses manage people more than they manage tasks, we hypoth-esize that bosses (both men and women) will rate communal behaviors higherin importance than will incumbents (both men and women). Similarly,because incumbents are more task-oriented in their work than are bosses, wehypothesize that incumbents will rate agentic behaviors as more importantthan will bosses. Extending the previous research regarding gender stereo-types and gender roles, we hypothesize that agentic behaviors will be rated asmore important by female bosses than by female incumbents, as a result ofthe former’s assimilation into male-dominated roles (Eagly et al., 2003;Korabik & Ayman, 2007). We propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. For communal behaviors, we expect a main effectof gender, such that women will rate these behaviors and com-petencies as higher in importance than will men.

Hypothesis 2. For communal behaviors, we expect a main effectof perspective, such that bosses will rate communal behaviorsand competencies as higher in importance than will incumbents.

Hypothesis 3. For agentic behaviors, we expect a main effect ofgender, such that men will rate agentic behaviors and compe-tencies as higher in importance than will women.

Hypothesis 4. For agentic behaviors, we expect an interactionbetween gender and perspective, such that no difference will befound between male incumbents and bosses, whereas a signifi-cant difference will be found between female incumbents andfemale bosses. Specifically, female bosses will rate agenticbehaviors and competencies as higher in importance than willfemale incumbents.

Method

Overview

The data used in this study were drawn from Personnel Decisions Inter-national’s (PDI) continuous data collection efforts for the PROFILOR for

40 FRAME ET AL.

Executives™. PDI’s PROFILOR for Executives™ is a measure that is usedsolely for individual self-development purposes. PDI uses the measure toprovide feedback for managers and executives regarding their competencylevels on key areas of development and performance improvement. A widevariety of industries, organizations, and individuals have used the measure.

Participants in the PROFILOR for Executives™ process have feedbackdelivered to them in a report format by an individual who has been speciallytrained to deliver PROFILOR for Executives™ feedback. Importanceratings using the measure were available for a large number of participantsand were analyzed to address the hypotheses discussed previously.

Participants

Study participants completed the PROFILOR for Executives™ processbetween May 1991 and April 1999. Importance ratings were provided by11,543 incumbent participants and 10,618 boss participants. Only the incum-bent and the boss were asked to provide importance ratings for the incum-bent’s position, thus this study was limited to only those ratings. Cases wereexcluded from analysis if data were missing (or rated does not apply) on oneor more competency dimensions (importance ratings), and if the respondentdid not indicate gender. The final sample (total N = 14,720) analyzed hereincludes the importance ratings from 8,115 incumbent participants and 6,605boss participants.

Incumbent demographics. There were 6,999 male incumbents and 1,116female incumbents. Incumbents were predominantly White (76.5%), with afew African Americans (2.0%), Native Americans/Alaskans (<1%), Asian/Pacific Americans (2.0%), Hispanic/Latino Americans (1.2%), or otherethnicities (1.5%). Of the sample, 16.5% did not report ethnic information.

Women incumbents were distributed across various organizational levels(6.5% first-line managers, 8.3% middle managers, 35.5% upper middle man-agers, 31.1% executives, 13.6% senior executives, and 4.9% top managers).Men in the incumbent sample were distributed across organizational level ina similar manner (3.5% first-line managers, 5.8% middle managers, 24.1%upper middle managers, 35.5% executives, 21.1% senior executives, and 9.9%top managers).

Boss demographics. There were 6,190 male bosses and 415 female bosses.Bosses were also predominantly White (88.1%), with few African-Americans(1.1%), Native Americans/Alaskans (<1%), Asian/Pacific Americans (1.8%),Hispanic/Latino Americans (1.1%), or other ethnicities (1.7%). Approxi-mately 6% of the sample did not report ethnic information. Organizational-level data were not collected for the boss sample.


Data Collection Procedure

PROFILOR for Executives™ packets were distributed to job incumbents.The packets contained rating forms for the incumbents’ boss(es), peers,subordinates, and an optional other category (including customers, clients, ormentors). Questionnaires were returned to PDI for processing and produc-tion of a feedback report.

Importance Ratings

The PROFILOR for Executives™ assesses eight broad factors, includingThinking; Strategic Management; Leadership; Interpersonal; Communica-tion; Motivation; Self-Management; and Breadth and Depth. These factorsare further broken down into 22 competencies or dimensions (see Appendix).

A section of the PROFILOR for Executives™ asks incumbents andbosses to rate the importance of each of the 22 competencies as they pertainto the incumbent’s job. Importance ratings for each competency are ratedon single items using 7-point scales ranging from important (1 or 2) tovery important (3, 4, or 5) to critically important (6 or 7). Participants areinstructed to rate no more than one third (i.e., 7) of the dimensions ascritically important and no more than eight as very important. Incumbents areasked to indicate how important each competency is to their job. Similarly,bosses are asked to indicate how important each competency is to the incum-bent’s job. Thus the importance ratings provide two different perspectivesregarding what is important for the incumbent’s job. The importance ratingsfor each competency were aggregated to provide a single score for each of theeight factors.

Results

Competency Dimensions

An initial factor analysis was performed to identify the underlying factorsin the PROFILOR for Executives™. This exploratory factor analysis wasconducted to determine which factors and competencies would be catego-rized as agentic and which would be categorized as communal. A principalcomponents analysis was conducted on the eight factors using an equamaxrotation.

A three-component solution was suggested based on eigenvalues and ananalysis of the scree plot. Component 1 had an eigenvalue of 1.75 and

42 FRAME ET AL.

accounted for 21.8% of the variance. This component was comprised of moreagentic competencies and factors (i.e., Thinking, Strategic Management,Motivation). Component 2 had an eigenvalue of 1.29 and accounted for16.1% of the variance. This component was comprised of more communalcompetencies and factors (i.e., Interpersonal, Communications, Self-Management). The third component (with an eigenvalue of 1.14 andaccounting for 14.3 % of the variance) was not used in subsequent analysesbecause only one factor (i.e., Breadth and Depth) loaded highly on it. Inter-estingly, the Leadership Factor did not load highly on any of the threefactors. The scores for Components 1 and 2 were averaged to form an indexof agentic factors and an index of communal factors, respectively.

Effects of Gender and Perspective on Agentic and Communal Factors

Overall, there was a main effect of factor type, within subjects (L = .99),F(1, 14719) = 30.92.20, p < .001, hp

2 = .174. All participants (across genderand perspective) rated agentic factors as being more important (M = 4.72,SD = 0.78) than they did communal factors (M = 4.16, SD = 0.81). We testedour hypotheses by submitting the importance ratings of the agentic andcommunal factors to a 2 ¥ 2 MANOVA in which gender and perspective(incumbent vs. boss) were between-subjects factors. We explored differencesbetween the four cells of the design using pairwise comparisons.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, we found a main effect of gender on communalfactors, F(1, 14716) = 99.35, p < .001, hp

2 = .007, such that the importanceratings of women on communal factors were higher (M = 4.36, SD = 0.85)than were the importance ratings of men (M = 4.14, SD = 0.80). Support wasalso found for Hypothesis 2. Bosses rated communal factors higher in impor-tance (M = 4.18, SD = 0.81) than did incumbents (M = 4.14, SD = 0.82),F(1, 14716) = 7.46, p < .01, hp

2 = .001. For communal factors, gender did notinteract with perspective, F(1, 14716) = 0.81, p = .368; and female bosses andincumbents did not differ on their ratings of communal factors (Ms = 4.42and 4.34, SDs = 0.82 and 0.86, respectively), pairwise p = .058. By contrast,male bosses rated the communal factors higher (M = 4.16, SD = 0.80) thandid male incumbents (M = 4.12, SD = 0.81), F(1, 14716) = 9.94, p < .01,hp

2 = .001. Female incumbents rated communal factors as being more impor-tant than did male incumbents, pairwise p = .000, hp

2 = .005, and there was asignificant difference between male and female bosses on the importance ofcommunal factors, pairwise p = .000, hp

2 = .003. The effects of gender andperspective on importance ratings of communal factors are illustrated inFigure 1.

For agentic factors, there was no main effect of gender, F(1, 14716) =2.72, p = .10, contrary to Hypothesis 3. Men’s importance ratings of


agentic factors (M = 4.73, SD = 0.78) did not differ from women’s impor-tance ratings (M = 4.66, SD = 0.83). However, gender did interact withperspective, F(1, 14716) = 13.23, p < .001, hp

2 = .001, such that, as expected(see Hypothesis 4), female bosses rated the agentic factors as being moreimportant (M = 4.76, SD = 0.84) than did female incumbents (M = 4.62,SD = 0.83), pairwise p < .001, hp

2 = .001. Male incumbents and bosses did notdiffer for agentic factors (Ms = 4.74 and 4.72, SDs = 0.77 and 0.79, respec-tively), pairwise p = .051. Male incumbents rated agentic factors as beingmore important than did female incumbents, pairwise p < .000, hp

2 = .002;but there were no significant differences between male and female bosses onthe importance of agentic factors, pairwise p = .24. The effects of gender andperspective on the importance ratings of agentic factors are illustrated inFigure 2.

Figure 1. Mean (�1 SE) importance ratings of communal dimensions as a function of genderand perspective.

44 FRAME ET AL.

Effects of Gender and Organizational Level on Agentic andCommunal Factors

To further explore the unexpected ratings of bosses (i.e., rating agenticfactors higher than communal factors), follow-up analyses were conducted toexamine differences across job levels. Because organizational-level data werenot available for the boss sample, this analysis was only conducted for theincumbent sample. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) the impor-tance of agentic factors would increase as a function of increasing job level;and (b) the importance of communal factors would decrease as a function ofincreasing job level. We tested these new hypotheses by submitting the impor-tance ratings of the agentic and communal factors to a 2 ¥ 6 MANOVA inwhich gender and organizational level (i.e., first-line managers, middle man-agers, upper middle managers, executives, senior executives, top manage-ment) were between-subjects factors.

Figure 2. Mean (�1 SE) importance ratings of agentic dimensions as a function of gender andperspective.


The main effect of organizational level was more pronounced for agenticfactors F(5, 8030) = 47.53, p < .000, hp

2 = .029; than for communal factors,F(5, 8030) = 10.56, p < .000, hp

2 = .007. Incumbents in higher level positionsrated agentic factors as more important than did those in lower level posi-tions, whereas incumbents in higher level positions rated communal factorslower in importance than did incumbents in higher level positions. The meanimportance ratings for agentic factors and for communal factors as a func-tion of gender and organizational level are presented in Tables 1 and 2,respectively.

There was no main effect of gender for agentic factors; and the interactionof gender and organization level, F(5, 8030) = 2.54, p < .05, hp

2 = .002, waslargely a result of the difference between gender differences in the ratings ofupper middle managers and middle managers (gender differences in theratings of top management incumbents also approached significancep = .056; see Table 1). The overall trend (i.e., higher level incumbents report-ing agentic factors as more important than lower level incumbents) heldacross gender. The interaction between gender and organizational level foragentic factors is illustrated in Figure 3.

For communal factors, there was a main effect of gender, F(5,8030) = 25.46, p < .000, hp

2 = .003; yet no interaction between gender andorganizational level. While the overall trend (i.e., higher level incumbents

Table 1

Mean Levels of Importance of Agentic Factors as a Function of Gender andOrganizational Level

Organizational level

Men Women Average

M SE M SE M SE

Top management 5.00a .03 5.21a .10 5.10c .05Senior executives 4.87a .02 4.91a .06 4.89d .03Executives 4.77a .02 4.69a .04 4.73e .02Upper middle managers 4.62a .02 4.52b .04 4.57f .02Middle managers 4.50a .04 4.28b .08 4.39g .04First-line managers 4.29a .05 4.25a .09 4.27g .05

Note. For comparisons between men and women, means within rows that do notshare a common subscript differ at p < .05. For comparisons between organizationallevels, means within the Average column that do not share a common subscript differat p < .05.

46 FRAME ET AL.

reporting communal factors as less important than lower level incumbents)held across gender, women consistently rated communal factors as moreimportant than did men at every organizational level except one (seeTable 2). The effects of gender and organizational level for communal factorsare illustrated in Figure 4.

Discussion

Consistent with gender role theory (Eagly et al., 2000) female raters(targets and bosses) rated the communal factors higher than did male raters(targets and bosses). Surprisingly, agentic factors were rated by both men andwomen as being of higher importance than communal factors. This could bea manifestation of the pressure toward assimilation into a male-dominatedsystem, as noted by Korabik and Ayman (2007). In essence, all of the raterssee agentic, task-focused activities as being higher in importance to the jobbecause in the corporate culture in which they work, their success depends ontheir ability to accomplish task-focused, agentic functions. Follow-up analy-ses reveal that across gender, incumbents in higher level positions ratedagentic factors as more important than did their counterparts in lower levelpositions, lending support to the idea that success and upward mobility in

Table 2

Mean Levels of Importance of Communal Factors as a Function of Gender andOrganizational Level

Organizational level

Men Women Average

M SE M SE M SE

Top management 3.97a .03 3.87a .11 3.92c .06Senior executives 4.07a .02 4.22b .07 4.15d .04Executives 4.12a .02 4.33b .04 4.23de .02Upper middle managers 4.18a .02 4.37b .04 4.27ef .02Middle managers 4.12a .04 4.43b .08 4.27deg .05First-line managers 4.28a .05 4.57b .10 4.43fg .05

Note. For comparisons between men and women, means within rows that do notshare a common subscript differ at p < .05. For comparisons between organizationallevels, means within the Average column that do not share a common subscript differat p < .05.


corporate environments may require more task-focused behaviors. Thenature of the present study does not allow us to determine if time and careerprogression create agentic-minded mangers, or if people who are proficient atagentic behaviors are promoted more often than are their less agenticallyadept counterparts.

Overall, bosses rated communal factors as being more important than didincumbents. As noted previously, these findings may be a function of thetendency for bosses—who are required to manage more levels of subordinateothers (i.e., direct reports and indirect reports)—to see communal activitiesas more important to any job simply because they regularly engage in thisactivity. Male incumbents rated agentic factors higher than did femaleincumbents, but there were no gender differences for bosses’ ratings of theimportance of agentic factors. It may also be the case that gender expecta-tions drive the difference between male and female incumbents’ importance

Figure 3. Mean (�1 SE) importance ratings of incumbents for agentic dimensions as a functionof gender and organizational position.

48 FRAME ET AL.

ratings for agentic factors. By contrast, male and female bosses did not differin their respective importance ratings of agentic factors. This could resultfrom the possibility that female bosses attain their higher positions becausethey have disconfirmed gender expectations in the first place.

Follow-up analyses, however, reveal that incumbents in higher level posi-tions rated communal factors as less important than did their counterparts inlower level positions. The importance ratings of communal factors by femaleincumbents tended to be significantly higher than the ratings of the maleincumbents at all levels except one (i.e., top management). This again lendssupport to the notion that women value communal behaviors more so thando men, but as they progress up the organizational hierarchy, the importanceof these factors diminishes. Again, the present study cannot determine ifwomen who value communal behaviors are promoted less often or if women

Figure 4. Mean (�1 SE) importance ratings of incumbents for communal dimensions as afunction of gender and organizational position.


who are promoted find communal behaviors less valuable as they are pro-moted to higher positions.

Currently, research has not determined which rating sources may beinfluenced by extraneous information, such as stereotypes (Morgeson &Campion, 1997). Some (e.g., Yammarino & Waldman, 1993) have evenargued that supervisors will provide more objective importance ratings fora position than will incumbents. The present research offers no definitiveanswers regarding the relationship between importance ratings and perfor-mance. Future research efforts, however, should examine the relative accu-racy of different rating sources and how inaccuracy may be influenced bygender and other stereotypes.

As hypothesized, female bosses rated agentic factors higher than didfemale incumbents. Women in higher level jobs also rated agentic factorshigher than did women in lower organizational positions. Again, the needfor women to assimilate into male-dominated organizations, postulatedby Korabik and Ayman (2007), may explain these findings. As Korabik andAyman noted, “the more experienced women managers are and the highertheir positions, the higher in masculinity they are” (p. 112). Thus, moreexperienced and higher position raters (i.e., bosses) are more likely to holdthe stereotype that task-oriented agentic traits are required for leadership(Korabik & Ayman, 2007; Powell, 1999).

The differences in perspective, combined with the gender and job-levelanalyses, demonstrate a clear trend that people in higher level positions tendto rate agentic factors as more important than do those in lower level posi-tions. Similarly, people in lower level positions tend to rate communal factorsas more important than do those in higher level positions. These findings areconsistent across gender and have meaningful implications for futureresearch and practical applications.

These findings regarding competency importance ratings have boththeoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, thecurrent research both supports gender role theory (Eagly et al., 2000),and provides an application of it in the realm of importance ratings ofjob competency dimensions. Heretofore, the majority of studies examininggender role theory (see Eagly et al., 2000) have focused on performanceratings and effectiveness. By extending gender role theory to importanceratings, we have also demonstrated that the theory’s predictions alsogeneralize to the ratings provided by men and women about the natureof the job itself. This implies that the influence of gender stereotypes isnot limited to perceptions of individuals or gender categories per se, butthat it may also become a guiding factor in the formation of attitudesabout what is necessary and important for men and women to performtheir work.

50 FRAME ET AL.

From a practical standpoint, the present research has meaningful impli-cations. Our findings suggest that male and female incumbents view differentfactors as important for their jobs, and that male and female bosses may besending incumbents different messages regarding what is and is not impor-tant for the job. From a multisource feedback perspective, we have demon-strated that gender and organizational level may influence the developmentalplans and activities of incumbents. From a job analysis standpoint, theimportance ratings provided by incumbents and bosses may be significantlyinfluenced by the rater’s gender and organizational level.

In terms of advancing women into higher positions in corporationsand industry, the consistent differences across organizational levels may shedadditional light on the glass ceiling, which seems to limit women’s careerprogression (Powell, 1999). Specifically, perhaps women face barriers topromotion and advancement as a result, in part, of the importance they puton communal behaviors and the lack of importance they ascribe to agenticbehaviors. Given that the trend uncovered in the present study was consistentacross gender, it could be that the glass ceiling has more to do with communalversus agentic behaviors than it does with gender.

Bartol (1999) suggested that women’s career progress may be negativelyinfluenced by performance appraisals. Powell (1999) pointed out that if lowerlevel female employees are not groomed for top management positions aswell or as frequently as are men, they will be at a disadvantage when beingconsidered for upper level opportunities. Given the widespread use of impor-tance ratings in multisource feedback to assist targets in their career devel-opment activities and training endeavors (Dalessio & Vasilopoulos, 2001;Rogelberg & Waclawski, 2001), the impact of gender differences in theseimportance ratings is significant. Further exploration of gender differences inimportance ratings should be examined. Specifically, it will be crucial toexamine whether male and female bosses have different expectations aboutthe same job when the incumbent is a man or a woman. The present researchonly examined importance ratings for the position abstractly, without refer-ence to specific individuals or their characteristics.

Limitations and Future Research

The sample used for the present study was heavily skewed toward malebosses and male targets, as opposed to female bosses and female targets.There was also little ethnic diversity within the sample, with the majority ofboth bosses and targets reporting their ethnicities as White. The presentfindings will be more robust and generalizable if a similar pattern is found inmore gender-balanced and more diverse samples across perspectives.


We also note that many of the effects reported herein were small, and weresignificant primarily because of the large sample size. Nevertheless, an exami-nation of the effect sizes reveals that some of the effects were nontrivial.Further, we suggest that in actual job-related personnel decisions, small andsubtle differences in perceptions may have meaningful impacts on the livesand careers of those involved.

Future research should identify the impact of importance ratings onparticipant developmental plans and activities. Knowing which rating source(i.e., boss or incumbent) is most influential in creating development plans willafford a better understanding of the impact of the gender differences foundin the present study. As noted earlier, another question raised by the presentfindings concerns the causal relationship between importance ratings andperformance ratings. It may be the case that employees exert energy ondimensions that they deem important for the job, in which case it is theperceived importance of a dimension that determines performance. Alterna-tively, individuals may subjectively weigh the importance of a dimension basedon their performance, in which case it is performance that primarily deter-mines the subjective importance of competency dimensions. Naturally, abroader, more sophisticated combination of theory and methodology wouldalso allow for bidirectional and dynamic influence between importance andperformance. Such an approach likely has the most external validity.

Another research question that should be addressed is the independentand conjunctive effects of assimilation pressure and experience or tenure (seeKorabik & Ayman, 2007) on higher level females’ ratings of importance foragentic dimensions in boss positions, compared to in lower positions. Inother words, is assimilation pressure the primary determinant of elevatedimportance of agentic factors, or is it tenure and experience? Are they bothnecessary, or neither? As discussed previously, it may be the case that moreagentic females attain higher positions, independent of either assimilationpressure or job tenure. To the extent possible, future research should attemptto separate the dimensions of assimilation and experience into orthogonalfactors. This line of research will allow researchers to determine the differ-ences between women who assimilate quickly (i.e., assimilate without muchexperience), as opposed to those who do not assimilate (i.e., gain experiencewithout assimilating). The answers to these suggested research questions mayprovide a more complete understanding of the factors that inhibit womenfrom or catapult women to the upper echelons of organizations.

Organizations using appraisal and feedback instruments such as the onedescribed here should be aware that gender roles, expectations, and biases arelikely to be infused into the process. Future research should examine whetherinstruction, training, and other interventions can preclude such effects fromentering into judgments about what is or is not important for job performance.

52 FRAME ET AL.

The present study represents merely a first, yet important, step in understand-ing the relationship between gender and multisource importance ratings.

References

Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998).Self–other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51,577–598.

Bartol, K. M. (1999) Gender influences on performance evaluations. In G.Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 165–178). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999) Gender effects on social influence andemergent leadership. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work(pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1997, May). The importance of being earnest:Instrumentation effects on multirater assessments. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.

Cleveland, J., & Landy, F. (1981). The influence of rater and ratee age on twoperformance judgments. Personnel Psychology, 34, 19–29.

Dalessio, A. T., & Vasilopoulos, N. L. (2001). Multisource feedback reports:Content, formats, and levels of analysis. In D. W. Bracken, C. W.Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback:The comprehensive resource for designing and implementing MSF processes(pp. 79–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deaux, K. (1979). Self-evaluation of male and female managers. Journal ofSex Roles, 5, 571–580.

Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transfor-mational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles: A meta-analysis compar-ing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.

Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice towardfemale leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

Eagly, A., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effectivenessof leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Eagly, A., Makhijani, M., & Klonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluationof leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sexdifferences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M.Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructionsof gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589–634.

Holt, K., & Mount, M. (1991, August). Behavior, performance, and effec-tiveness of female managers and executives. In C. E. Marsh (Ed.),Women’s management careers: Issues in effectiveness, advancement, andderailment. Paper presented at a symposium at the 99th meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Inderrieden, E. J., Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. (2004). Managerial discre-tion in the use of self-ratings in an appraisal system: The antecedents andconsequences. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 460–482.

Korabik, K., & Ayman, R. (2007). Gender and leadership in the corporateworld: A multiperspective model. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J.Sanchex-Hucles (Eds.). Women and leadership: Transforming visions anddiverse voices (pp. 106–124). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Maroda, K. J. (2004). A relational perspective on women and power.Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21, 428–435.

Morgeson, F., & Campion, M. (1997). Social and cognitive sources of poten-tial inaccuracy in job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 627–655.

Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Women and work: A psychologicalperspective. New Yorker: Praeger.

Petree-Schatz, R., Tatney, C. J., Shelton, L. W., & Frame, M. C. (2007,April). Ethnic differences in importance ratings: A comparison of matchedsamples. Poster presented at the 22nd annual conference of the Society forIndustrial Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.

Powell, G. (1999). Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and futureprospects. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 325–345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Prien, K. O., Prien, E. P., & Wooten, W. (2003). Interrater reliability injob analysis: Differences in strategy and perspective. Public PersonnelManagement, 32, 125–141.

Roberto, K., Schwab, A., Drummond, T., Addington, K., Lin, L., & Frame,M. (2006, May). Gender differences in importance ratings in a 360 feedbacksurvey. Poster presented at the 21st annual conference of the Society forIndustrial Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Rogelberg, S. G., & Waclawski, J. (2001). Instrumentation design. In D. W.Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook ofmultisource feedback: The comprehensive resource for designing and imple-menting MSF processes (pp. 79–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of thethink-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.

54 FRAME ET AL.

Sullivan, E., & Frame, M. (2007, March). The interaction of age and gender onimportance ratings. Poster presented at the 28th annual Industrial/Organizational and Organizational Behavior Conference, Indianapolis,IN.

Surley, N., Cinciripini, C., Orsak, K., Cooper, A., Addington, K., Lin, L.,et al. (2006, May). Importance ratings: Does rater age make a difference?Poster presented at the 21st annual conference of the Society for IndustrialOrganizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Van Iddekinge, C., Putka, D., Raymark, P., & Edison, C. (2005). Modelingerror variance in job specification ratings: The influence of rater, job,and organization-level factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 323–334.

Waldman, D. A., Yammarino, F. J., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). A multiple-level investigation of personnel ratings. Personnel Psychology, 43, 811–835.

Warr, P., & Hoare, S. (2002). Personality, gender, age, and logical overlap inmulti-source ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,10, 279–291.

Wendong, L., Kan, S., Hongyan, W., Juan, J., & Min, Y. (2006). The effectsof job incumbents’ task performance on their job analysis ratings: Evi-dence from power plant designers and editors. Acta Psychologica Sinica,38, 428–435.

Wexley, K., & Silverman, S. (1978). An examination of differences betweenmanagerial effectiveness and response patterns on a structured job analy-sis questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 646–649.

Yammarino, F. J., & Waldman, D. A. (1993). Performance in relation to jobskill importance: A consideration of rater source. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 242–249.

Zwick, A., Rollings, K., & Frame, M. (2007, March). Meeting expectations:The association between performance ratings and importance ratings cor-relations. Poster presented at the 28th annual Industrial/Organizationaland Organizational Behavior Conference, Indianapolis, IN.


Appendix

Factors of the PROFILOR for Executives™

1. Thinkinga. Seasoned judgmentb. Visionary thinkingc. Financial acumend. Global perspective

2. Strategic Managementa. Shaping strategyb. Driving execution

3. Leadershipa. Attracting and developing talentb. Empowering othersc. Influencing and negotiatingd. Leadership versatility

4. Interpersonala. Building organization relationshipsb. Inspiring trust

5. Communicationa. Fostering open dialogueb. High-impact delivery

6. Motivationa. Drive for stakeholder successb. Entrepreneurial risk taking

7. Self-Managementa. Mature confidenceb. Adaptabilityc. Career and self-direction

8. Breadth and Deptha. Cross-functional capabilityb. Industry knowledgec. Business situation versatility

56 FRAME ET AL.

What Is Important on the Job? Differences Across Gender, Perspective, and Job Level

Documents

Transcript of What Is Important on the Job? Differences Across Gender, Perspective, and Job Level