THE EFFECTS OF LEADER SEX, LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND LOCUS OF
CONTROL ON EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
Michelle Christina Garbato
B.S., Rochester Institute of Technology, 2005
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
(Industrial/Organizational Psychology)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2010
THE EFFECTS OF LEADER SEX, LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND LOCUS OF
CONTROL ON EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
A Thesis
by
Michelle Christina Garbato
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lawrence Meyers, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Greg Hurtz, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Caio Miguel, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Michelle Christina Garbato
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
THE EFFECTS OF LEADER SEX, LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND LOCUS OF
CONTROL ON EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
by
Michelle Christina Garbato
Role congruity theory proposes that prejudice against women in leadership positions may
be due to an incongruity between sex roles and leadership roles. Furthermore, leader sex,
leadership style, and employee locus of control may also affect employee satisfaction. In
the present study, one hundred and sixty undergraduates (132 females, 28 males, mean
age 20 years) completed the Internal Control Index; using a vignette methodology,
participants read a situation that described a theoretical job and then they completed the
Job Descriptive Index, Job in General Scale, and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
(short form) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (long form: supervision
subscale). Results showed that higher internal locus of control and a democratic
leadership style were associated with greater job satisfaction, while no effects for sex of
protagonists were obtained. Results are interpreted in context of role congruity theory.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lawrence Meyers, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Completing a Master’s degree is truly an accomplishment, and I would not have
been able to complete this journey without the aid and support of many people over the
past few years. I must first express my gratitude towards my committee chair and advisor,
Dr. Lawrence Meyers. His leadership, patience, support, dedication, and scholarship have
set an example I hope I can achieve one day. I would also like to thank my committee
members, Dr. Gregory Hurtz and Dr. Caio Miguel for their assistance throughout the
entire process, as well as the students and professors I have had the opportunity to work
with at California State University, Sacramento. Each individual has positively
contributed to my academic experience and has helped me grow more than I ever thought
possible.
I must also give thanks to my emotional support system, consisting mainly of
family and friends, who have always been there to help lift me up when I felt as though I
could not finish. I thank my parents and my extended family, for instilling in me a
confidence and a drive for pursuing my Master’s degree, and my friends who have
always been there for me and pushed me to go the extra mile.
I am truly blessed to have such a strong support system and such beneficial
academic experiences in my life. I certainly could not have finished without their support
and for that, I dedicate this thesis to all of the people who have helped me pursue my
dreams.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................... 3
History of Gender Roles .............................................................................................. 3
Biological Gender Differences .................................................................................... 7
Underlying Gender Role Theories ............................................................................... 9
Gender Inequality and Social Role Theory ................................................................ 13
Socialization of Gender Roles ................................................................................... 14
Gender Characteristics ............................................................................................... 19
Gender and Leadership Styles ................................................................................... 20
Leadership Styles and Employee Satisfaction ........................................................... 26
Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory ....................................................... 30
Women in the Workplace .......................................................................................... 36
Locus of Control ........................................................................................................ 40
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................. 46
3. METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 47
Participants................................................................................................................. 47
Materials .................................................................................................................... 48
Design ........................................................................................................................ 53
Procedure ................................................................................................................... 55
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 57
Dichotomizing Locus of Control ............................................................................... 58
Interaction Effects ...................................................................................................... 58
Effects for the Independent Variables........................................................................ 59
vi
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 63
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................... 72
Research Implications ................................................................................................ 76
Appendix A. Human Subjects Application .......................................................................... 79
Appendix B. Instructions (Read to Participants) .................................................................. 84
Appendix C. Vignettes .......................................................................................................... 85
Appendix D. Demographic & Organizational Questions ...................................................... 93
References ............................................................................................................................... 97
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Employee
Satisfaction Measures ............................................................................................. 60
2.
Table 2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Employee Satisfaction
Measures as a Function of Leadership Style ..................................................... 61
3.
Table 3 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Employee Satisfaction
Measures as a Function of Locus of Control ..................................................... 62
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
We have long understood that employees are an organization’s most valuable
asset, yet their satisfaction is often an overlooked factor in organizational success.
Management continues to deny how pertinent employee satisfaction is to financial
performance.
Many factors can affect employee satisfaction, such as leadership style, leader
sex, and employee locus of control. By understanding employees and what satisfies them,
we can then improve organizational loyalty, absenteeism, turnover, productivity,
customer satisfaction, and organizational success. By creating a healthy work
environment, employee satisfaction and job performance will blossom, allowing the
organization to flourish as well.
Studies tend to focus on factors, such as leadership style, leader sex, and their
interaction, to investigate employee satisfaction. These studies tend to exclude
personality characteristics that can affect employee satisfaction. More specifically,
experts in the field of psychology have attempted to investigate how leadership style
(e.g., autocratic, democratic, interpersonal, task oriented) and leader sex (i.e., male,
female) affect employee satisfaction (Eagly, 2007). Although these factors are important
to our understanding of employee satisfaction, one factor that has not received much
attention involves the role of locus of control in conjunction with leadership style and
leader sex on employee satisfaction.
2
This literature review is broken into three basic sections, including gender roles,
leadership styles, and locus of control. First, I will review the history of gender roles and
explain how these roles have influenced the gender roles in the United States today.
Then I will continue with a discussion on the biological differences that exist between
men and women and the implications that biology has on gender roles. Following this, a
discussion will open regarding important sociological and psychological theories of the
gender institution and gender role theories (e.g., social control theory, cognitive
development theory, and social learning theory) and explain how gender roles continue.
Then I will review the social role theory and discuss how people are socialized from birth
and how gender role socialization later primes gender specific personality characteristics.
In the next section, I will discuss how these gender roles spill over into the
organizational world in terms of leadership styles. This will include a summary regarding
leadership styles and an in depth discussion about gender differences and leadership
styles and how the different leadership styles affect employee satisfaction. I will use
social role theory and role congruity theory to help explain the differences in leadership
styles between men and women. Then I will discuss the emergence of women in the
workplace and the implications it has on leadership effectiveness. Finally, I will discuss
employee locus of control and the potential effects that it may have on employee
satisfaction.
Collectively, this will provide an overview of gender roles, leadership styles, and
locus of control; it will also help to explain how each of them may interact with one
another to affect employee satisfaction.
3
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Background
In recent years, researchers have shown that people believe effective managers
exhibit masculine qualities (e.g., Bass, 1990; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Some researchers
even assert that there are few women in managerial positions because upper level jobs are
more characteristic of men (Bass, 1990). This leads to confusion about whether women
should adhere to managerial or gender specific roles. Research further demonstrates that
subordinates view female leaders negatively and question their abilities and competencies
as managers (Riger & Galligan, 1980). In turn, this may affect the leadership styles each
gender uses and may negatively impact employee satisfaction.
History of Gender Roles
Gender roles, or sex roles, are behaviors that society defines as appropriate
behaviors for each sex (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986). In other words, they are beliefs
regarding how men and women should act or behave based upon their identified sex and
the attributes that are associated with that sex (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & JohannesenSchmidt, 2001). Based upon these gender roles, women are subordinates and inferior to
men. However, evidence suggests that gender roles were not always like this throughout
American history.
During the beginning of human civilization, women and men were roughly equal
in status (Nielsen, 1978). Hunting and gathering societies originated approximately
4
150,000 years ago; they were comprised of people that foraged for food. Since hunters
and gatherers moved from one geographical area to the next, there was little opportunity
to accumulate material goods. Both men and women worked and contributed resources
to the family, which allowed little social stratification to develop. Men typically hunted
for meat sources while women gathered plant based food sources. This separate and
complimentary division of work ensured that both sexes contributed to the group’s
survival (Nielsen, 1978). Despite these differentiated roles, the status remained relatively
equal between the sexes until more societies developed (Nielsen, 1978; Whicker &
Kronenfeld, 1986).
Between 18,000 B.C. and 12,000 B.C, herding and horticulture societies
developed in the Near East. These groups discovered that plants could be grown and
animals domesticated, which allowed people to settle in a single area for an extended
period. As civilizations advanced technologically, stratification between the sexes also
increased, prompting gender roles to emerge. Although women were responsible for the
majority of the food production in horticulture societies, men held a higher status within
society (Nielsen, 1978).
By 3,000 B.C., the invention of the plow improved agricultural methods by
cultivating soil and producing crops more efficiently. Further agrarian societies then
developed and with that, social stratification also increased. Men became primarily
responsible for the agricultural work because of the large machinery involved. This
increase in labor quantity and intensity forced women to abandon farming tasks, and
instead raise children and become homemakers. This change shifted the responsibility of
5
subsistence onto the men and consequentially negatively affected the public lifestyles and
status of women. Despite the shift in women’s roles and status throughout history,
research shows that men have consistently been at least equal to women in status,
regardless of how much labor they provided (Nielsen, 1978). Historians and
anthropologists argue that this was due to men’s abilities to excel and specialize in
physical activities, such as warfare and herding, which was associated with greater status
and wealth (Harris, 1993).
Industrialization replaced agricultural methods within the United States by the
1880s. Factories developed and people started working for wages; this prompted large
cities to develop and flourish. Textiles (e.g., spinning, weaving), which were
traditionally completed by women, had now become factory based. Women’s
responsibilities shifted from food production and reproduction (during agrarian societies)
to solely reproduction. Furthermore, men were economically important within the home,
even though the nature of their jobs had changed (e.g., industrial work; Nielsen, 1978),
which further increased social stratification.
Historically speaking, the term “woman” was synonymous with the term “family”
because women had distinct roles that confined them to the family within the home
(Chetwynd & Hartnett, 1978). These attitudes toward women as homemakers prevailed
from 1880 to 1940, when women started gaining equal rights, higher status, and
employment in the workforce. However, gender roles continued despite the progressive
changes that had occurred (Nielsen, 1978).
6
The workforce served as a viable alternative to marriage or a helpful option for
women to contribute financially to the family and decrease economic dependence on their
male relatives (Storkey, 2001). The invention of birth control in the 1960s allowed
women to delay parenthood until later in life so that they could seek employment.
Furthermore, advanced technologies deemphasized the need for physical strength, which
made it easier for women to enter the workforce (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986). Despite
these changes though, women still needed to adhere to the same traditional views;
therefore, women continued to be subordinates to men in every domain of life, from
family dynamics and occupational roles to social policy.
There are many theories that explain why gender roles occur. For example,
evolutionary psychologists believe that women and men have specific sex mechanisms
that have evolved over time due to different pressures faced by each sex in primeval
environments. Therefore, men and women are psychologically different and adopted
different social roles because of these sex mechanisms (Eagly & Wood, 1999). On the
other hand, social structuralists believe that men and women faced different situations
across societies and throughout time. Deaux and LaFrance (1998) assert that these
cultural and situational conditions affected the opportunities of men and women.
Anthropologists believe that sex differences are culturally transmitted behaviors
that reflect society’s current values (Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1972). The ecological
and social conditions then affect the type of work that each sex engages in because
certain sexes can efficiently accomplish certain tasks (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998). Despite
7
this, it is common for women to have fewer resources and lower status and power in
America and other societies throughout the world.
Unlike traditional attitudes, researchers today believe that some personality
attitudes developed because of social stratification. Men are typically associated with
more dominant and independent behaviors while women are more submissive and
subordinate (e.g., cooperative, nurturing). Yet, historically, many believed a woman’s
role was within the home because women were intuitive, nurturing, emotional, and
perceived to be easily distracted. In turn, women may have developed superior
communication and nurturing abilities because they had to care for their children. On the
other hand, a man’s role remained within the workplace and the public arena, as leaders
and protectors, because they were believed to be more analytical, objective, and strong.
In modern day society, people are socialized to take upon these gender roles (Eagly &
Wood, 1999).
Biological Gender Differences
Historically, it was believed that men were biologically superior to women and
naturally inherited these characteristics; to change it was to go against nature and the
church’s teachings and beliefs. This distorted view continued until society’s needs and
aspirations for women changed (Storkey, 2001).
Certainly, biological differences between men and women do exist. For example,
men and women have different chromosomes, anatomies, hormones, weight, height, and
brain activity. Men are on average 7% taller and 20% heavier than women (Storkey,
2001); although differences exist, they are not a justifiable reason to discriminate against
8
either sex. After all, homosapians share 99.9% similar DNA with one another, meaning
that only .1% of our genetic codes for proteins express the differences that exist between
us, which account for differences in appearance, personality, and susceptibility to disease
(Ptak, Roeder, Stephens, Gilad, & Paabo, 2004).
To date, there is no agreement on whether brain differences between men and
women are due to biological or environmental influences. Researchers have
demonstrated that the right hemisphere of the brain is often associated with emotions,
visual tasks, and facial recognition, while the left hemisphere of the brain specializes in
language skills. Some research has shown that men and women differ in terms of their
left and right hemispheres, where a larger portion in the right hemisphere in male brains
is devoted to more spatial tasks (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986).
Despite the biological differences between the sexes, one cannot dismiss sex roles
as merely a reflection of biological differences that exist. The categories male and
female, are categories that help to establish one’s identity. People cannot view sex and
gender solely in terms of biology; they need to take into account the social, economic,
and political factors that affect our perceptions (Storkey, 2001) and take responsibility for
the differences in income, status, promotions, and opportunities between the sexes.
The term gender, or the act of being masculine or feminine, reflects cultural
concepts related to one’s sex. Therefore, being a man or a woman is not merely a
reflection of biological makeup, but also behavioral characteristics (e.g., learning to
behave in ways that are masculine or feminine). Since what is believed to be masculine
and feminine varies from culture to culture, gender roles will vary too. One must fully
9
comprehend these gender roles to understand the implications that they may have in the
real world.
Underlying Gender Role Theories
There are many overlapping theories that describe the formation and persistence
of gender roles, but I will describe the most prominent only. Talcott Parson, a prominent
American sociologist, devised the notion of the social system and provided a useful
framework for understanding gender institutions. Parson believed that society is
comprised of interlocking status roles and gender roles. Statuses are positions that
individuals engage in, in relation to one another, such as the roles of a manager and a
subordinate employee. On the other hand, roles are the behaviors expected of people in
certain statuses. For example, a manager’s role is to lead subordinates while their status is
one of higher leadership and rank. Collectively, these gender roles project onto different
domains in life (e.g., family, education); although every individual may shift their roles
and statuses within each domain, there exists a general consistency of roles within each
institution (Lengermann & Wallace, 1985).
Parson’s social control theory posits that society labels individuals as deviant if
they question the social structure. People must adhere to certain beliefs and norms; when
compliance does not occur then the individuals are negatively sanctioned both materially
(e.g., salary, promotional opportunities) and psychologically (e.g., disapproval,
negativity). When an individual challenges these beliefs and norms, inner turmoil,
tension, guilt, anxiety and self-doubt may result because the individual and the societal
customs are not aligned (Lengermann & Wallace, 1985).
10
Parson further argues that the family serves as the primary influencing agent in
teaching children these roles and compliance with them. The family is also the source for
the child’s emotional sustenance and social order. To maintain social order in the family,
both male and females will each have to specialize in specific roles. Men connect the
home and the wider social and natural environments, and must be ambitious and forceful,
while women must maintain the functioning of the family internally and remain
supportive, affectionate, gentle, and sympathetic. If too much similarity and equality
between the gender exist, then the stability and social well-being of the family may be
threatened because the genders will be competing with one another (Lengermann &
Wallace, 1985).
Peter Berger, a sociologist and Lutheran theologian, theorizes that individuals act
in a certain way due to knowledge that they have acquired from real social processes. In
other words, socialization, or the act of internalizing social meanings, occurs when the
individual creates a knowledge set as they experience problems in life. These internalized
ideas then become externalized through words, actions, and products where other people
use them and integrate them with the social environment. As other people react to one’s
words, actions, and products, that individual will further internalize these thoughts and
reactions. The gender institution then becomes fragile because it largely depends on the
definition of gender roles. Additionally, an individual’s life experience can affect these
definitions, making the gender institution always susceptible to change (Lengermann &
Wallace, 1985).
11
Cognitive development theory further explains how gender roles continue. These
theorists believe that children change throughout their development, similar to those
outlined by Piaget (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986). They argue that children learn to
categorize themselves as boys or girls and learn to take upon roles that are associated
with that specific gender. They also learn to categorize other people and are aware of the
appropriate behaviors associated with these individuals. Eventually, children learn that
one’s sex is constant and that one cannot alter one’s sex by, for example, changing one’s
clothes (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986).
Social learning theory emphasizes that children learn gender roles because of the
environment in which they are immersed (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986). Dornbusch
(1966; as cited in Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1972) further theorized that sex roles
developed to increase efficiency, so that each child did not have to be taught every type
of appropriate behavior or activity. This implies that society dictates the behaviors and
rules that are acceptable for each gender.
Reinforcement and punishment conveys what behaviors are appropriate based
upon the child’s sex and age (Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1972; Whicker & Kronenfeld,
1986). Skinner (1953) as cited in (Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1972) posits that parents
are socialization agents for children and are essential to gender role development. More
specifically, parents teach their same sex children appropriate gender roles (Whicker &
Kronenfeld, 1986). Gender roles can then change based upon the gender roles that the
society has implemented and the specific requirements associated with them (Rosenberg
12
& Sutton-Smith, 1972). These roles keep society orderly and functioning smoothly by
helping to minimize conflict and protecting family life.
Social learning theory developed from two major theories: stimulus-response
theory and psychoanalysis. Social learning occurs very early in a child’s life; children
become psychologically dependent on others for care and sustenance. The child depends
on his or her mother for comfort and satisfaction, and will then become anxious when the
mother is absent. By the time the child reaches one year of age, he or she has learned
how to gain the mother’s approval and disapproval. In other words, the mother’s
behaviors reinforce the child; the child will then generalize this reinforcement into other
situations. Once a child learns the process of rewards and punishments, then he or she
will develop a more complex learning process, which includes imitation and modeling
(Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1972).
Both social learning and cognitive development theories focus on society’s role in
shaping gender roles. Social learning theory posits that society uses reinforcement and
punishment to develop and enforce rules. According to cognitive development theory,
children have more responsibility in their development. Children will develop their
gender identity by processing information and reasoning and then learn to mimic those
behaviors and characteristics associated with their gender thereafter (Archer & Lloyd,
1982). Therefore, children learn gender appropriate characteristics at an early age and
actively try to reflect those gender characteristics that are congruent with their gender and
age.
13
Gender Inequality and Social Role Theory
Gender inequality is due to the categorization, functional differentiation,
segregation, and unequal power and status of men and women. Any member of society
can categorize an individual as a male or female, using the person’s name, title,
interaction, style of dress, and physiological parts. From birth, until death, the person
will remain in this category (unless they intentionally seek otherwise) and will be
subjected to the activities, gender roles, and personality traits that society dictates for
them; people that do not adhere to this system are negatively sanctioned (Lengermann &
Wallace, 1985).
Society differentiates males and females in many ways. In America, male
dominated occupations (e.g., construction worker, doctor, mechanic) and female
dominated roles (e.g., homemaker) or occupations (e.g., nurse, receptionist) contribute to
gender segregation. In tribal societies, religious rituals, doctrines, and social ridicule
helped differentiate between females and males. Today, sex segregated schools,
restrooms, and organizational clubs all separate males from females, but despite these
sanctions, there is still considerable gender interaction that occurs (Lengermann &
Wallace, 1985).
Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) asserts that people internalize gender
expectations or social roles and are pressured to act in a way that is consistent with these
norms. These gender roles then affect other domains of life, such as organizational roles,
because people act in ways that are congruent with their gender roles or face
consequences for the incongruence (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003).
14
Socialization of Gender Roles
Gender role socialization begins early in life (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986); from
birth, females and males are raised and treated differently according to their sex (Nielsen,
1978). This teaches children what social roles or positions are expected of them and what
rights and responsibilities that they have. For example, a female is socialized throughout
her life to take on responsibilities that are similar to social positions that are typical of
females (Nielsen, 1978). Although these social positions may gradually change across
time and across cultures, the expectations for women in the United States have remained
fairly consistent throughout the years.
Children continue to learn gender roles throughout their childhood and
adolescence. Language serves as an important medium by which society communicates
gender roles to children. The child observes and mimics behaviors observed through
interactions with their parents and those with the rest of society. Although there is no
consensus as to how children learn gender roles (e.g., cognitive development theory,
social learning theory), it is apparent that children use different mediums to develop a
sense of oneself (Lengermann & Wallace, 1985).
During childhood, children learn the differences that exist between the different
sexes. For example, parents provide different toys for the sexes based upon their gender
(Archer & Lloyd, 1982). Children actively try to understand the world and their own
identity and gender, and then incorporate all the information together. In school, gender
specific rules and regulations teach children gender differentiation. The children then
develop a sense of identity through their own appearance, actions, morals, and
15
relationships. These interactions will affect them in all aspects of life, thus allowing them
to learn gender roles appropriately (Lengermann & Wallace, 1985).
Society socializes men to be the sole earners of a family, while it teaches women
that they must take upon the roles of the wife and homemaker. In other words, women
were negatively viewed for establishing independence (although this has somewhat
changed with time; Denmark, 1993). American culture also dictates what men should
desire and value in a mate— an attractive, easygoing partner that supports him
emotionally and serves as his subordinate (Lengermann & Wallace, 1985). However,
people still expect women to be attractive to the opposite sex, not only physically, but
emotionally as well (Denmark, 1993). With the demands of finding a partner, society
pressures both females and males to take upon these roles.
Parents serve as the primary source of socialization for children, making the
relationship that occurs highly important and influential, especially in regards to gender
role socialization. For example, mothers serve as the primary caretakers for their
children, which affect the children’s development. By being able to interact with same
sex caretakers (as females do with their mothers), they are able to develop empathy and
intimacy that allows them to connect with other people. The relationship that boys
engage in with their mothers helps them to develop distinct gender roles. Boys must
differentiate between feminine gender models and develop their own gender role identity.
This means that boys must learn how to distance themselves from intimacy, especially
since their fathers are not intimate role models (Vianello & Siemienska, 1990).
16
As stated prior, schools serve as influential mediums to socialize children,
especially since children are subjected to sex segregation in school. This reinforces the
belief that girls and boys are different from one another and that they should behave
differently, especially when they become adults (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986). For
example, girls learn to negotiate relationships and express themselves through speech,
while boys are more apt to tell stories, argue, and verbally posture. Furthermore, society
teaches boys about dominance and hierarchies through competitive activities during
adolescence, while girls are prompted to engage in athletics that require them to be
supportive non-participants, such as cheerleaders. Cheerleaders are expected to be
attractive and poised, and cheer for the leaders (the male athletes on the team). In
essence, this is teaching women to “lead” the crowd of observers, while taking a lower
level role within the game (Denmark, 1993).
Socialization then leads girls to develop relationships and interpersonal skills.
When girls play together in groups, they will often choose girls that are similar in age and
play in pairs in relatively private settings. Girls tend not to be competitive, but instead
develop cooperative and exclusive relationships, with best friendship prevailing. When
girls argue, they often avoid confrontation and instead just distance the group; they also
use subtle and acceptable vocal cues to criticize others, and learn quickly how to maintain
relationships and who to confide in. Boys, on the other hand, will play in groups that
adhere to hierarchies early in their development and will use speech to posture and
counter posture others to assert status and gain approval. Through schooling, society
17
continuously reinforces gender roles during such a vital time in childhood development
(Archer & Lloyd, 1982).
The media is also a strong socializing agent in gender role development in
children. The television is a dominant mass medium within the United States; it airs
shows that reflect current stereotypes and gender roles. For example, television shows,
like the Flintstones, primes children for gender roles by depicting the men as the sole
monetary contributors and the wives as submissive homemakers. Additionally, the
commercials aired during such shows often include advertisements, which further depict
current stereotypes and gender roles (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986).
Other socialization mediums include the clothing and other activities that children
wear or engage in. Girls are taught to wear pink clothing and to like ruffles, while boys
are prompted to like blue and sports oriented outfits. Even before birth, specific items are
purchased because of the child’s sex, so that the color and other characteristics of the
items are congruent with the child’s sex. Some studies even suggest that boys and girls
are not only clothed differently, but are also treated differently by their parents (in terms
of the amount affection received) simply because of the child’s sex (Whicker &
Kronenfeld, 1986).
Children are taught to engage in games and play with toys that further socialize
gender roles. Girls play with dolls, play “house”, and engage in simple noncompetitive
games like “jump rope” while boys play with trucks and blocks and play more aggressive
and competitive games, like football and war games (Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1986).
Furthermore, card games, like “Old Maid”, depict women as liabilities and as something
18
that can and should be discarded. The premise of the game is to have players collect
cards in order to create a family, but they must also dispose of the Old Maid by pawning
it off on another player. This may be because the Old Maid is viewed as a liability to the
card player (and in reality family; Storkey, 2001).
The cultural language also serves as a strong socializing force of gender roles due
to the biasness of the language. For example, the words strength, power, vigor, force, and
ability all define masculine items. This leads people to believe that strength is associated
with masculinity, prompting people to believe that men are stronger than women are.
However, if one were to factor in stamina, perseverance, and longevity, then a different
paradigm may result. Collectively, language may help to denote a difference between
sexes, but the language is tailored towards men, which potentially makes the language
have a sexist connotation (Storkey, 2001).
Behaviorally speaking, girls and boys are taught that they must adopt certain
gender specific characteristics or risk consequences for not doing so. Gender theorists
further assert that girls and boys are socialized to act in distinct ways; boys are
conditioned to be ambitious and agentic, while girls are expected to seek relationships
with others. Since birth, boys are socialized to be competitive and political, while girls
are primed to take upon roles that are more cooperative. Feminists often attribute girls’
lack of interest in politics and public life because they have been primed to take upon
these submissive gender roles and characteristics (Vianello & Siemienska, 1990).
19
Gender Characteristics
Some developmental psychologists believe that children learn roles from sex
segregated peer groups and then project this into their adult life (Tannen, 1990). This
socializes children for gender role conformation in all aspects of life, including a lack of
advancement in the workplace for women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001). If
someone decides not to adhere to these gender roles, society may negatively sanction
them for their rebellion. For example, traditionally speaking, if a woman established
independence and remained unmarried, then she was negatively viewed by members of
society for not being available or having her own family (Lengermann & Wallace, 1985).
These pressures force people to adhere to gender roles in fear of being isolated from
society.
These conditioned gender roles then lead to behavioral and characteristic
differences in their adult life. Research shows that men are believed to be “instrumental,
competent, rational, and assertive” while women are believed to be viewed as “warm,
sensitive, tactful and expressive” (Eagly & Johnson, 1990, p. 234). Men are also typically
more dominant, competitive (Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1993) controlling/forceful,
independent, and confident than women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) and are
more likely to interrupt, challenge their partners’ thoughts, ignore comments made by
others, and respond less enthusiastically. Women are more apt to ask questions, maintain
conversation flow, use more personal pronouns, and protest silently when they have been
interrupted (Archer & Lloyd, 1982). These differences also manifest themselves in
communication mediums, where men tend to be more direct and communicate downward
20
while females communicate upwards from subordinates (Emerick, 2006). These gender
differences further add to the gender role stereotypes that spill over into the
organizational world.
Gender and Leadership Styles
Gender egalitarianism is slowly becoming more prominent in today’s society,
even in the workplace, but there is still need for improvement. Women are increasingly
entering the workforce and are more educated and active in the political sphere than ever
before. Traditional roles, where men dominate, may be fading. Instead, a more
egalitarian view, which claims that differences in gender roles are not based upon the
actual differences that exist between genders, but instead on the individual abilities of
people, may be emerging (Vianello & Siemienska, 1990).
Yet research suggests sex stereotypes are still present in today’s society and these
gender roles spill over into leadership roles as well (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Every
person has in their long-term memory a belief system that details the characteristics of
leaders and non-leaders (Lord, Foti, & Phillips, 1982). This leadership prototype is a
multidimensional common knowledge structure that is formed early in life (Epitropaki &
Martin, 2004).
In this paper, when we refer to leadership, we are referring to a synonymous
term, which encompasses both leadership and management, whose overall goal is to
increase organizational performance. The term leadership originated in the 18th and 19th
centuries when philosophers proposed the “great man theory”, a theory that postulated
that great historical events occurred because of "great men", or heroes. These individuals
21
were highly influential men who were charismatic, intellectual, and/or who held great
political impact. Unfortunately, the “great man theory” was based upon years of sexist
beliefs that heroes were male and that the ability to lead was innate and inherited through
the passing of superior genes. These beliefs were highly supported by others, who
believed that rulers continue to rule through family lineage because they give birth to the
most capable offspring (Denmark, 1993). These sexist beliefs contributed to an
underlying conviction that women were not and could not be effective leaders or
contribute substance to society as males could.
These sexist beliefs laid the groundwork for the narrow-minded leadership
research that would occur in the 1900s. Historically, society defined effective leadership
in terms of masculine qualities and characteristics because of not only the “great men”
and sexist beliefs of the day, but also because there were few, if any, female leaders.
Therefore, research during the 1900s focused on identifying specific characteristics of
successful and effective male leaders (Denmark, 1993).
Lewin and Lippit defined leadership in terms of the leader’s involvement with
people or work related issues. In 1938, Lewin and two other scientists contrived the term
when they were studying children and their control capabilities. They found three basic
control types (or leadership styles) that children used: autocratic, democratic, and laissezfaire. They also studied the childrens’ reactions (e.g., anger, hostility) in relation to the
control types that certain children exhibited (Nicolaou-Smokoviti, 2004).
These studies profoundly influenced future leadership research, which assessed
the effects of leadership style on group member satisfaction. Lewin’s work influenced
22
research on different leadership styles, which demonstrated that there is a continuum of
leadership styles, which range from extremely democratic to autocratic. Although these
studies focused solely on the male population, they helped build the foundation for
broader and more effective leadership research. Currently, leadership research
investigates the use of leadership styles in various contexts and assesses employee
reactions to specific conditions, using both male and female populations (Denmark,
1993).
Leadership styles are, by definition, behaviors that fall within a range of typical
behaviors (but are not always identical or exhibited; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Leadership
styles often differ in the amount that employees participate in the decision making
process (Bass, 1990). For example, a democratic leader allows employees to engage in
decision-making but ultimately the leader exudes final authority with decisions
(Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973). In other words, democratic leaders encourage
deliberation and suggestions, which help to empower their employees (Bass, 1990),
distribute responsibility, and allow for self-determination, inclusiveness, equal
participation, and deliberation (Pines et al., 2001). On the other hand, autocratic leaders
allow minimal or no employee input because of strict standards and processes for
accomplishments (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973). Eagly and Johnson (1990) further
contend that it is not possible for an individual to use both a democratic and autocratic
leadership style simultaneously because they are polar opposites. Therefore, one can
only use one leadership style at a time, but can alternate between or use different
leadership styles at different times.
23
Several leadership styles (e.g., interpersonal orientation, task orientation) are
appropriate for use depending on the specific circumstances of the situation. These other
dimensions are implicit in the autocratic and democratic styles and thus will not be the
focus of the current research. For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) suggested that an
interpersonal orientation is associated with a democratic leadership style, and those who
have a task orientation tend to use an autocratic leadership style. Since these other
leadership styles fall on a continuum between the autocratic and democratic leadership
styles, it is unnecessary to focus on these other leadership styles in the current research.
Furthermore, these other dimensions of leadership may not give rise to gender role
associations because there are not consistent gender differences between them (Bass,
1990; Luthar, 1996). For example, the autocratic leadership style is similar to the agentic
characteristics that are usually associated with males, because males tend to be more
dominant and controlling than women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). On the
other hand, women are more interpersonally oriented than males, which is more
associated with the democratic leadership style. The democratic and autocratic
leadership styles were the focus of the current research because they have dichotomized
dimensions and are associated with gender roles (e.g., Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt,
2001).
One must know that leadership styles are not fixed behaviors. Instead, they are
styles of leadership that encompass a range of behaviors. Depending on the situation,
leaders will vary their behaviors based upon the range of behaviors within that leadership
style. For example, democratic leaders may allow subordinates to make decisions fully on
24
his or her own, or they may ask subordinates for their thoughts on a topic, but make the
final decision on his or her own. In times of crisis, the leader may abandon his or her
typical leadership style altogether and engage in a behavior that does not fall within the
typical range of his or her leadership style. For example, a democratic leader might make
a decision and not involve others in the process at all (Eagly, 2007).
As stated prior, certain leadership styles are believed to be related to sex
stereotypes. For example, an autocratic leadership style emphasizes the maintenance of
tasks while a democratic leadership style emphasizes the nurturing of relationships.
These roles reflect dimensions of sex stereotypes within the masculinity and femininity
domains respectively. In other words, women tend to be democratic leaders, or more
“people oriented” than autocratic leaders, while males tend to be autocratic leaders
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Women are believed to have communal qualities, like being
selfless, concerned with the welfare of others, emotionally expressive (Eagly & Karau,
1991), helpful, kind, and sympathetic and are motivated by nurturance. They also tend to
be less hierarchical, more cooperative and collaborative, and more focused on enhancing
other people’s self worth (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Women use more submissive and
passive tactics than men to lead others (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007).
These sex traits are also similar to characteristics that are associated with certain
leadership styles. In an organizational setting, this implies that the individual supports
and listens to others, and speaks tentatively (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). These
traits are characteristic of democratic leadership since they involve group members in
decision-making, focus on achieving the goals, empowering others, and encouraging
25
shared power and information. Democratic leaders are also more open with colleagues
and are more concerned with employee welfare, which are similar to feminine
characteristics (Pines et al., 2001). Furthermore, women tend to disagree with
hierarchical downward decision-making processes, but like to adapt a more egalitarian
view where employees within the organization are at an equal level (Pines et al., 2001).
Traditionally speaking, these characteristics have not been associated with effective
leadership, which has ultimately affected the perceptions people have towards female
leaders.
As stated prior, men are agentic and instrumental and have a more self-interested,
task-focused orientation. They also tend to be more competitive, assertive, and dominant
within their environment and consistently and forcefully argue a point, interrupt others,
and avoid tentative speech patterns (Yoder, 2001). They try to intimidate others, promote
themselves, and bask in reflected glory, which projects power (Guadagno & Cialdini,
2007) and are independent, ambitious, achievement oriented and use their power to
ensure that each individual contributes accordingly. Therefore, leader characteristics are
associated more with masculine gender roles than feminine gender roles (Eagly & Karau,
2002).
Research demonstrates that women use a more democratic leadership style than
men. Eagly and Blair Johnson (1990) conducted a meta-analytic study of organizational
studies, leader assessments, and laboratory research. Results from leader assessments
and laboratory studies showed women use a more interpersonal style of leadership than
men, who were more task oriented. The results from the organizational studies showed
26
that there was no difference between the genders in terms of the task oriented and
interpersonal style of leadership. However, all three types of studies showed a significant
difference between leader sex and leadership style. More specifically, women tended to
use a more democratic leadership style and men were more likely to use a more
autocratic leadership style.
Meta-analytic studies have shown that men were more likely to be more
autocratic (or directive) than women, while women were more likely to be more
democratic (participative) than men (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). The study assessed
laboratory experiments, assessment studies, and organizational studies. Eagly and
Johnson argued that this may reflect the attitudinal bias that exists against women; in
other words, people expected women to act a certain way, and that is why they may have
been bias in their ratings. Research completed within the last 30 years suggests that there
is a gap between what people think is typical of female behavior and ideal leadership
(Eagly & Karau, 2002). This may be due to the incongruity between the female gender
role and the expected leadership role (Eagly & Karau, in press as cited in Eagly &
Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
Leadership Styles and Employee Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as the degree of positive or negative feelings that a
person has towards different aspects of their job. Satisfaction is as an emotional state
resulting from the job achieving one’s job values while dissatisfaction implies failure of
the job in achieving one’s job values. The satisfaction one feels for different aspects of
the job then form a general satisfaction level for the job (Salazar, Pfaffenberg, & Salazar,
27
2006). Leadership is an important variable in member satisfaction and has consistently
been a topic of debate and research throughout the years. Unfortunately, there have been
conflicting findings within the research; some research has shown that subordinates are
more satisfied under democratic leadership (e.g., Kushell & Newton, 1986), whereas
other researchers have demonstrated that people are more satisfied under autocratic
leadership (e.g., Foels et al., 2000).
Some research demonstrates members under autocratic leadership are more
satisfied than those under democratic leadership, although these findings are rather
sparse. Foels et al. (2000) studied satisfaction and leadership by having participants
watch a video and then discuss it within a democratically or autocratically led group.
Results showed that members in the autocratically led group were more satisfied than
members in the democratically led group.
Other research has found more dramatic differences in member satisfaction in
regards to leadership style, where employees are more satisfied with democratic leaders
than autocratic ones (Thomas, 1992). For example, in a laboratory study conducted by
Kushell and Newton (1986, as cited in Foels et al., 2000), participants hypothetically
rated the importance of several items they desired if they were on the moon. Results
showed that those members in democratically led groups were more satisfied than those
members in autocratically led groups.
Some researchers suggest that members under democratic leadership are more
satisfied than groups led by autocratic leaders. Some findings show that this difference is
significant, whereas others have shown this tendency to be small. However, many
28
variables, including the group itself, the size of the groups, the gender composition of the
groups, and the potency of the leadership style may affect satisfaction. For example,
results of a gender composition based meta analysis conducted by Foels et al. (2000)
suggested that as the difference between the autocratic leader and democratic leader
became more pronounced, then the satisfaction differential increased.
Other researchers suggest that democratic leadership enhances the quality of
decisions and increases member satisfaction (Bass, 1990). For example, Looney (2004)
found that male democratic leaders fared higher in leadership evaluations than their
autocratic male counterparts. These employees also were absent less and found the work
to be more enjoyable than those employees under autocratic leadership. Democratic
leadership empowers employees by allowing people to engage in the decision-making
process, which then leads to greater autonomy, satisfaction, and self-confidence (Salazar,
Pfaffenberg, & Salazar, 2006). Employees, when empowered, take ownership of the job
and feel more responsible for the work they do. In turn, this leads to organizational
loyalty, decreased turnover and absenteeism, increased productivity, and greater customer
satisfaction.
Other research has demonstrated that the gender of the leader may not influence
the employee’s satisfaction. Even though people are more satisfied in democratically led
groups, the gender of the leader did not significantly affect their level of satisfaction
(Kushell & Rae Newton, 1986). However, other studies show that although the gender of
the leader itself does not affect employee satisfaction, the leadership style may interact
with the leader’s gender and affect employee satisfaction (Fiedler, 1967).
29
Research further supports that female leaders are generally viewed more
negatively than male leaders. Research has shown that when leadership styles were
dichotomized in terms of democratic or autocratic leadership, male leaders were
evaluated more positively than female leaders when using autocratic leadership styles
(Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonksy, 1992). Other experiments have used written descriptions
of managers where the sex of the leader varies between each participant. In review of 61
experiments, results showed that there was a small tendency for males to be favored more
than females. However, this difference increased in male dominated leadership roles
(Eagly et al., 1992).
Experiments, where participants evaluated the effectiveness of theoretical leaders,
have also shown bias against women. Davidson and Burke’s (2000) review of 49
experiments showed that men were preferred over women for masculine type jobs (e.g.,
auto salesperson, doctor) while women were preferred over men for feminine jobs. The
leadership style and sex of the leader were shown to be just two factors that could affect
people’s evaluations of a leader (Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006). Situational
theorists argue that the type of leadership style that is appropriate depends on the context
of the situation, such as the nature of the task, the characteristics of the followers, and the
culture of the organization. When situations arise where an autocratic leadership style is
appropriate, women are at a disadvantage because autocratic leadership is incongruent
with their gender role (Schein, 1973).
Collectively, research shows that group members are generally more satisfied
with democratic leadership than autocratic leadership, although the extent of this is
30
unknown. It is important to note that no leadership style is appropriate to use in all
circumstances or situations, and thus another leadership style may be more effective
given that specific situation (Denmark, 1977). Situational leadership theorists argue that
the context of the situation affects the type of leadership style appropriate for use (Eagly,
2007). For example, the nature of the task, the organizational culture, and the
subordinates may all affect what leadership style will be most effective given that
particular situation (Eagly, 2007). Nicolaou-Smokoviti (2004) argues that any leadership
style will be effective if the desired outcome is productivity, but if group freedom is the
desired outcome, then democratic leadership will be appropriate. Although the
democratic and autocratic leadership styles do not fully explain the relationship between
employee production and satisfaction, they may highly affect them, and thus, are the
focus of this experiment.
Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory
Social role theory asserts that expected leadership roles influence how people will
act under certain situations. People expect leaders to behave in certain ways due to
preconceived expectancies based on gender roles (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
In other words, men and women learn different skills and beliefs that later affect the
different social behaviors they engage in. These social expectations can affect the type of
jobs that each sex engages in and negatively affect the perceptions people have if these
gender and organizational roles are incongruent. For example, a female doctor may be
viewed as an assertive individual because doctors are typically thought to be men. This
31
negatively affects the way people perceive her because she is in a role that is incongruent
with her gender role (Eagly, 1987).
Role congruity theory, which is based off social role theory, explains that leaders
are evaluated more positively and perceived to be leaders that are more effective when
their characteristics are believed to be congruent with the current social or gender roles
(Eagly & Diekman, 2005). Role incongruity occurs when a leader’s gender and
leadership style are incongruent with one another. For example, a female manager who
uses an autocratic leadership style is incongruent with the typical roles associated with
females because, as women, they must exhibit communal characteristics, but as leaders,
they are expected to exhibit agentic characteristics. This results in two incongruent and
conflicting roles for women. On the other hand, men are believed to be effective leaders
because their gender roles are more congruent with leadership roles (Eagly, 2007).
Therefore, people view male leaders more favorably due to the consistency between male
gender roles and leadership roles (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
According to role congruity theory, descriptive and prescriptive biases can result
from the incongruence between a female leader’s role and gender role. Descriptive bias
occurs when there is a gap between a female’s gender role and her leadership role. A
female who exhibits characteristics in accordance with her gender role is not believed to
have the necessary characteristics to be an effective leader. Similarly, prescriptive bias
occurs when a female exhibits more masculine leadership characteristics, which violates
her gender role. This results in a double standard; no matter what type of leadership role a
32
female adopts, they will be negatively sanctioned for either being an ineffective leader or
an authoritative female (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Societal injunctive norms hold women to engage in certain behaviors because of
gender roles (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Since men
are leaders, they tend to be evaluated more positively and believed to be more successful
in leadership roles than women. This biased view leads people to believe that feminine
behaviors are less favorable than masculine behaviors, even if the sexes are displaying
the same behavior. This leads to prejudice against women simply because their gender
roles are incongruent with leadership roles (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
Research shows that female managers are continually targets of prejudice and
are evaluated more negatively than males, especially when they are in an industry that is
incongruent with their gender role (Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006). Eagly and
Karau’s (2002) role congruity theory explains that the amount of prejudice that female
leaders face varies according to the amount of incongruence that exists between their
gender role and leadership role. Since there is probably a greater incongruence between
gender roles and leadership roles in male dominated industries, female leaders in male
dominated industries may receive more prejudice than if they were in a female dominated
industry (Eagly & Karau, 2002). For example, Eagly’s et al. (1992) meta-analytic study
regarding gender and leader evaluations (using written vignettes and confederate studies)
generally showed that females were evaluated slightly more negatively than male leaders,
especially when exhibiting autocratic behavior. Although these are laboratory studies
33
using artificial situations, they still have merit because they reflect real world influences
(Denmark, 1993).
Another meta-analytic study completed by Davidson and Burke (2000) also
showed that men were preferred over women for masculine jobs (e.g., sales manager,
mechanic) and gender-neutral jobs (e.g., psychologist), but women were preferred over
men for feminine jobs (e.g., secretary). This suggests that women may be viewed as
more effective leaders when the position is congruent with their gender roles and
incongruent with male gender roles. However, since most occupations are associated
with male characteristics, women will be viewed as less effective leaders overall.
Some researchers suggest that participant age and sex could have affected the
results of these studies, where female and older participants may be more prejudiced
against female leaders than male and younger participants were. Other research
demonstrates that participants favored male leaders, regardless of the industry studied and
that female leaders were perceived to be more masculine overall, but more feminine
when they worked in an industry that was congruent with their gender role. However,
men maintained a level of masculinity regardless of the industry in which they worked
(Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006).
A meta-analytic study by Wood and Eagly (2002) demonstrated that male and
female leaders were equally effective, except when the leadership roles were incongruent
with the female gender roles. In this case, men were perceived to be more effective than
women when in more masculine roles, while women were more effective when the role
was defined in less masculine terms (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Bass (1990) also revealed
34
that females were rated as less effective than male leaders, but this was reasoned to be
because of stereotypes and biases from the research participants.
Other researchers have also shown that male leaders are preferred over female
leaders. For example, a 1979 study showed that undergraduate women believed that
characteristics of a leader were masculine characteristics, and not feminine or
androgynous traits. Furthermore, results showed that people perceived graduate women
to have more masculine traits than undergraduate women, showing a bias towards those
who achieved a higher academic level. Conclusively, the characteristics that are
associated with effective managerial performance are not congruent with traditional
female gender roles. Women often lose to their male counterparts when competing for a
position; therefore, women in leadership roles face a disadvantage simply because of
their gender. Some believe this is because men are believed to be more dominant and
influential than women in leadership, whereas women are still believed to be submissive,
complacent, and easily influenced (Merrick, 2002).
Women inevitably face the dilemma of exhibiting these stereotypical feminine
gender roles (e.g., communal qualities) or more agentic qualities (Eagly & JohannesenSchmidt, 2001). If women conform to their gender roles, they may face lack of respect
and advancement in leadership positions. On the other hand, if they conform to
leadership roles then they may be perceived negatively and be subjected to further
prejudice, such as negative attitudes, pressure, and disapproval towards female leaders
(Eagly, 2007). These preconceived gender roles diminish beliefs that women have the
potential to be capable leaders and decreases people’s evaluations of their actual
35
leadership. Some suggest women can negate this by establishing a balance between
exhibiting both communal and agentic qualities (Yoder, 2001).
Perceptions of female desires and feminine characteristics may also affect
management’s decisions during the hiring process. Since society has preconceived
notions about women’s desires and potential, they may deem women incompetent,
especially if that position is incongruent with stereotypic gender roles. Additionally,
there are societal pressures that require females be attractive, making a women’s worth
partially dependent on how attractive men perceive her to be. Even though they may be
very competent and capable of managing others, they are not believed to be capable
leaders and are therefore, not chosen to be. It is plausible to assume that as more women
enter leadership roles, they will hire comparable women to themselves since people tend
to accept and gravitate towards people that are similar to themselves. Therefore, over
time the gap between the genders may minimize and perhaps diminish (Merrick, 2002).
National polls are an available method used to gather information by polling
representative samples of participants and asking them questions on a myriad of subjects,
including leadership. Results have consistently shown that male leaders are perceived to
be more effective and preferred over female leaders. From 1953 to 2006, those polled
stated that they would prefer working for a male boss to a female one. However, this
difference has steadily decreased over the years (Carroll, 2006). Other poll results
showed that in 1937 only 33% of respondents believed that they could vote for a wellqualified woman nominated for president by their own party versus 92% in 2006
(Freeman, 2008). However, in 2006 only 55% agreed that the United States was ready for
36
a female president, compared to 40% just ten years prior. Therefore, once women
increasingly gain access to higher leadership positions, it is likely that society will
embrace them as leaders more so.
Women in the Workplace
The 1970s and 1980s marked a transition in gender equality because women
started to gain employment in the paid workforce. Progressively more and more women
were entering management positions; however, gender roles often hindered their
opportunities for advancement. If a woman adopted male characteristics of leadership,
then her colleagues might have alienated her, resulting in negative attitudes that stressed
working relationships and decreased productivity (Eagly & Diekman, 2005).
Women are treated unfairly sometimes, in terms of not only promotional
opportunities, but also monetary rewards, promotional policies, employment utilization,
and professional development (Merrick 2002). For example, research shows that men
have earned higher wages than women in comparable jobs and that women earn a lower
salary even though they tend to be older and employed by the firm for a longer time
(Denmark, 1977). Furthermore, male managers were pessimistic regarding the
promotional opportunities for women than women were themselves (Denmark, 1977).
Research suggests that the pay scale differential between genders occurs because
females are evaluated unfairly due to gender roles and stereotypes (Eagly et al., 1992).
This suggests that women have a more difficult time obtaining promotions within
organizations, regardless of level (Eagly, 2007) and suffer from a wage/salary
37
discrimination even when such variables (e.g., hours worked per year, type of
occupation) are taken into consideration (Eagly & Carli, in press as cited in Eagly, 2007).
Additionally, a majority of employees prefer to have a male leader to a female leader,
making it harder for female leaders to gain opportunities and succeed in leadership
positions. Despite these findings, women exhibit leadership skills that may put them at a
slight disadvantage for leadership (Eagly, 2007).
Research shows that even though there is nearly equal representation in the
workplace, men still progress faster and higher than women (Guadagno & Cialdini,
2007). Since women face prejudice, they may self-select themselves and not apply for
promotional opportunities simply because they anticipate that they cannot progress within
the workplace. Although this may be due to many reasons, one reason may be that
women do not desire to be employed in a hostile work environment (Stokes, Riger, &
Sullivan, 1995). When women do apply for positions, they typically have to exceed the
male applicants’ qualifications to obtain the position. Therefore, women are not equal to
men’s success in most conditions (Eagly, 2007).
People often believe that since men are typically larger and stronger than women,
they are also more intelligent and effective leaders. Sociologists may argue that positions
occupied by males and females are not directly related to one’s physical size or muscular
mass. Instead, the difference in positions is related to social values and attitudes
regarding the sexes (Storkey, 2001). Furthermore, the ability to promote within the
workplace depends on how men and women are evaluated, which allows workplace
politics and management to affect organizational business (Storkey, 2001). Since men
38
are often in charge of hiring other leaders (especially the higher-level positions), they will
often choose people that are similar to themselves in status, background, beliefs, and sex
(e.g., Denmark, 1977).
Some people believe that there is a lack of women in management positions due
to other reasons (e.g., a lack of skills). They also believe that female leaders need to
receive more training and need more opportunities to develop their leadership skills.
Others believe that this bias is due to sex role stereotypes that convey that women are not
good leaders (Denmark, 1977). For example, a 1965 survey conducted by The Harvard
Business Review indicated that of 2,000 executives, 820 (41%) stated that they were
against females becoming executives because they felt that women were inadequate for
the positions (Bass, 1990). Further research has demonstrated that men will naturally
become leaders in mixed groups in both laboratory experiments and real world settings
(Denmark 1977). This demonstrates the inequality of the sexes in management positions
and implies that women are placed at a disadvantage for leadership positions simply
because they are not typically in these roles. Although this trend has decreased over time,
it has not been eliminated (Eagly & Karau, 2002)
Studies indicate that people believe high performance from women is due to luck
or chance, whereas high performance from men stems from their innate intelligence,
abilities, or skills (Luthar, 1996). Swim and Sanna (1996; as cited in Luthar, 1996)
showed that a woman’s success is often attributed to other circumstances, other than their
actual ability (when compared to men’s success). These attributions, over time, lead
39
people to believe that such differentials in compensation, status, and power are justifiable
(Luthar, 1996) and thus, reflect societies’ values at that given point in time.
Researchers believe that for a woman to be successful she must liberate herself
from pressures to conform to the traditional gender roles and constraints (Eagly &
Diekman, 2005). They also argue that there are several ways in which a female’s
authority is minimized including the way in which she is addressed (e.g., by her first
name vs. Mrs.), not asserting oneself, allowing and accepting sexist language and lack of
recognition and status, and minimizing one’s own credentials. Since women do not often
speak up against this prejudice, then they are allowing it to continue. This means that
they are becoming their own worst oppressors (Merrick, 2002).
Although women are becoming more prominent in management, there is still a
gender gap within management positions. For example, in 2002, women made up 5.2%
of top earning corporate officers in the Fortune 500 (largest companies), which was an
increase from 1.2% in 1996 (Catalyst, 2002). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics state
that women only occupy 24% of the chief executive positions in organizations and only
37% of all managers within an organization on average (Eagly, 2007). This is compared
with the 14% national estimate in 1947 and 22% thirty years later (although the positions
were mostly in health administration, building supervision, and restaurant management;
Merrick, 2002). Furthermore, only 39% of the entire workforce was occupied by women
in the 1970’s, 1% of which were women who were upper level managers (Merrick,
2002). This increase of women in the workforce and managerial positions is partially due
to a shift in sharing domestic work with husbands, increasing education (Eagly, 2007)
40
and seeking paid employment (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, as cited in Eagly, 2007).
Therefore, women are becoming more career oriented and seeking higher positions than
they have historically, making the equality between the sexes continue to improve.
To sum, women have been socialized to adhere to gender role stereotypes (Eagly
& Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Since the effectiveness of leadership styles depends on
other factors (e.g., features of the subordinates, groups, or organization) there is no clear
consequence of employing a specific leadership style. Research on the effectiveness of
democratic and autocratic leadership styles on group productivity and employee
satisfaction show that features of the groups and organizations, among other conditions,
are important moderating variables as well (Foels, et al., 2000).
Gender roles spill over into leadership roles; women face more prejudice,
especially when they engage in leadership styles that are incongruent with their gender
roles (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Even if women exhibit leadership styles that
are more effective, they may still face reluctance, especially from men who do not want
to lose power and status within the workplace. If current trends persist and more women
enter more management positions, leadership positions will become more gender
balanced (Catalyst, 2002), which may weaken occupational roles and turn leadership into
a more androgynous term (Wood & Eagly, 2002).
Locus of Control
Locus of control refers to a person's belief about what causes the positive or
negative results in his or her life, either in general or in specific areas. In other words,
locus of control describes a person’s attitudes regarding the relationship between their
41
behaviors and its outcomes. Internal locus of control is when people feel that
reinforcement occurs because of their own actions (Meyers & Wong, 1988) and that their
behavior does have an effect on everyday events that occur (Rotter, 1966; as cited in
Meyers & Wong, 1988). Therefore, people with an internal locus of control believe that
they are in control of things that happen within their life and are more confident,
assertive, and proactive in seeking opportunities for achievement (Salazar, et al., 2006).
They believe that they are in control of reaching their own goals, successes and even
failures. Additionally, these individuals view challenges as an opportunity for
professional growth, while those with external locus of control may ignore these
opportunities and dismiss the possibility that they could be used as an opportunity for
growth (Huang, 2006).
People that have an external locus of control believe that reinforcement occurs
because of things other than their own behavior (Meyers & Wong, 1988) and that the
outcome did not cause his or her behavior. In other words, the person has minimal, if any,
effect on any events that occur. Those with external locus of control believe that fate,
luck, or chance controls what happens in life, whether in successes or failures (Salazar, et
al., 2006).
The belief of whether or not people can control events in their lives has profound
effects on their attitudes and behaviors within work settings (Blau, 1987). Since those
with internal locus of control attribute circumstances to factors that they can control, they
are more likely to attribute things that happen in the workplace (e.g., promotions) to their
own initiatives (Blau, 1987). They are also happier with their pay, perform better, and are
42
able to withstand more stress (Huang, 2006). Research also shows that people with
internal locus of control exert more effort in changing their environment, by trying to
influence operating procedures, job assignments, and relationships with others (Spector,
1982). Those with external locus of control are less likely to leave a job or considering
leaving a job if they are not satisfied with current aspects of it and instead wait until
environmental aspects force them to leave (Blau, 1987).
Rotter (1966) as cited in Oliver, Jose, and Brough (2006) was the first to measure
locus of control on a bipolar continuum. If we view locus of control in terms of a onedimensional construct, then we believe it is a general, global belief; if we view locus of
control in terms of multidimensionality then we believe that there are multiple
dimensions of locus of control in different areas of one’s life. Therefore, multiple
measures should be used to assess one’s locus of control if it is multidimensional,
whereas only one construct is needed if it is only unidimensional.
There are many different measures that assess locus of control within various
domains (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). For example, a work locus of control scale,
developed by Spector (1988), measures an individual’s locus of control in terms of work
related issues, such as promotions and salary increases. This 16-item scale measures a
person’s general belief regarding work. Some researchers believe the Work Locus of
Control Scale should be used with caution (Oliver et al., 2006) because the scale is not
unidimensional. On the other hand, even though some researchers think that the domain
specific locus of control measures, like the Work Locus of Control, may be more reliable
(Lefcourt, 1992), the global measure was used in the current study because the workplace
43
locus of control index cannot be used in conjunction with experiments using simulations
and vignettes.
The current research also seeks to include some variables that are often omitted
from the research: personality variables. Traditional research has left out personality
variables, where subordinates react to the gender and leadership style that their leader
encompasses. Past research, which has focused on personality variables, has evaluated
how autocratic and democratic subordinates evaluate either autocratic or democratic
leaders. In other words, research has shown that autocratic individuals tend to prefer
autocratic leaders (e.g., Cellar et al., 2001). However, little research has been completed
on the specific personality traits of subordinates. One such study has evaluated the role
of agreeableness with employee satisfaction with leaders, where results showed that
participants that had a high level of agreeableness rated democratic leaders higher than
autocratic leaders, while the opposite was true for participants that had a low level of
agreeableness. Furthermore, those participants that were low in agreeableness tended to
rate female autocratic leaders and male democratic leaders lower, but generally leader sex
did not affect leader effectiveness ratings (Cellar et al., 2001).
Social learning theory (Rotter, 1966; as cited in Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004)
asserts that people will learn through reinforcement; reinforcement will teach individuals
the likelihood that a specific behavior or event will occur based upon the association of
the behavior with that reinforcement. People will then generalize and project this into
different situations and contexts, thus affecting the person’s behavioral choices.
44
Therefore, reinforcement will strengthen the relationship between a behavior and the
reinforcement (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004).
This phenomenon can be applied to locus of control as well. Judge and Bono
(2001) found that locus of control had an estimated true score correlation of .32 with job
satisfaction. Other research has shown that external locus of control is negatively related
to job satisfaction (Huang, 2006; Sidani & Gardner, 2000) but that there was no
difference between men and women (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). Some believe that
those with an external locus of control may be less satisfied because they feel that they
have no control over organizational incidents, such as promotions, selection, appraisals,
which then leads to lower job satisfaction (Sidani & Gardner, 2000). Greenberger,
Strasser, and Cummings (1989) state that internal locus of control, or personal control
was a predictor of work satisfaction for employees and that individuals with an internal
locus of control were more motivated and participated more within their jobs (Salazar et
al., 2006). Other research has shown that locus of control is an important variable in job
satisfaction, job performance, and turnover, but there are theoretical and psychometric
debates on how locus of control should be quantified (Oliver et al., 2006). Additionally,
locus of control, although related to job satisfaction, is not a predictor of it (Salazar et al.,
2006).
Alarcon, Eschleman, and Bowling (1999) further showed that locus of control
was significantly related to job burnout, a negative emotional reaction to one’s job that is
caused from a stressful work environment. Internal locus of control was also negatively
related to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and positively related to personal
45
accomplishment. Since burnout is an indicator of employee wellbeing, and attitudes,
health and behavior, it is important to address locus of control in the present study.
Research has shown that locus of control may interact with employee satisfaction,
such that external work locus of control is negatively related to job satisfaction for both
men and women. In addition, work locus of control is a significant predictor of job
satisfaction for women (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). Another study found that locus of
control moderated work demands and strain; those with external locus of control
responded more negatively when confronted with work demands than those with internal
locus of control (Newton & Keenan, 1990). Other research showed that work locus of
control had a negative correlation with job satisfaction (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004).
However, one must interpret these results cautiously because researchers used small
sample sizes and potentially inadequate measures to assess job satisfaction.
Another study, which researched the relationship between job insecurity and
outcomes (e.g., mental health complaints, job dissatisfaction, job-induced tension) on a
Swedish nurse acute care hospital found that those participants that had more external
locus of control were more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than those that had less
external locus of control. Locus of control was also found to moderate the relationship
between job insecurity and mental health complaints, thus demonstrating that personality
characteristics are important predictors in how people react to certain stressors (Naswall,
Sverke & Hellgren, 2005).
Furnham and Drakeley (1993; as cited in Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004) believe
that people who have minimal power and opportunities are more likely to develop an
46
external locus of control. Based upon this logic, managers are more likely to develop an
internal locus of control because of their higher rank and status within organizations.
Other studies have shown that status within an organization can affect one’s external
work locus of control (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). In the present study, I assessed
locus of control and employee satisfaction (regardless of employee gender) with different
leader sexes and leadership styles.
Hypotheses
Because employee satisfaction is a large part of organizational success, the factors
that contribute to employee satisfaction were investigated. In other words, I assessed
leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control to see if they affect employee
satisfaction. Consistent with role congruity theory, it was hypothesized that participants
would be more satisfied with male leaders than female leaders (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
Since people typically are not satisfied with autocratic leaders, respondents should be
more satisfied with democratic leaders than autocratic leaders (Looney, 2004). The third
hypothesis focused on the degree of employee satisfaction in regards to different
leadership styles and sex of the leader. It was expected that participants would be less
satisfied when they were led by autocratic women than when they were led by autocratic
men (Eagly et al., 1992). Furthermore, I hypothesized that those participants who had a
lower internal locus of control would exhibit lower job satisfaction than those with a
higher internal locus of control (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). Finally, it was
hypothesized that those participants who had more internal locus of control would be less
satisfied with autocratic leaders than those people with less internal locus of control.
47
Chapter 3
METHOD
Participants
A convenience sample of 160 undergraduates enrolled in California State University,
Sacramento’s psychology introductory classes (i.e., Psychology 1 and 5) participated in
the study. There were 132 females and 28 males that participated. Participants were
ethnically diverse and their ages ranged from 18 to 30 years old, with an average age of
20 years. The research took place in one of the research rooms on the third floor of
Amador Hall at California State University, Sacramento and required 30 minutes of time
from each participant. Participants completed informed consent forms; then the
researcher informed participants that they could quit the study at any time without any
penalties, except that they would be unable to receive course credit for their participation.
They were debriefed at the end of the study to educate them about the study’s purpose.
This research was conducted to fulfill graduate thesis requirements. A formal
human subject’s review was completed and reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee.
Individual responses were completed anonymously and kept confidential. A copy of the
complete human subject’s application, including the potential risks to participants form,
the consent form, a description of the procedure, and the debriefing sheet can be found in
Appendix A.
48
Materials
Internal Control Index. This inventory assesses the extent to which a person
believes that the reinforcement they receive is due to internal or external factors
(Duttweiler, 1984). In other words, those who believe that reinforcement is caused by
external factors, such as luck or chance will have an external locus of control, whereas
people who have an internal locus of control believe reinforcement stems from their own
actions. This 28 item measure asks participants to rate the frequency of certain feelings,
ranging from A (rarely) to E (usually). The specific anchors included are, A = rarely (less
than 10 % of the time), B = occasionally (30% of the time), C = sometimes (50% of the
time), D = frequently (70% of time), and E = usually (+90% of time). Example
statements include, “When faced with a problem I try to forget it” and “If I want
something I work hard to get it”. The Internal Control Index reportedly has an estimated
reliability of .84, with the presence of a strong principal component, two replicable
factors, and evidence for convergent validity (Meyers & Wong, 1988). A complete list of
items and scoring instructions are included in Appendix B.
Vignettes. These vignettes include a hypothetical scenario in which the
participants imagined that they were employees at Smith Professional Services. The
leadership styles in the vignettes were adapted from the manipulations of leadership style
used in a previous study (Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart & De Cremer, 2004). The hypothetical
scenarios included in the vignettes were modified for the leadership style and sex of the
leader. A manipulation check and content validity study was completed for the vignettes.
Several psychology graduate professors and graduate students reviewed the vignettes to
49
verify that the leadership style was manipulated in the intended manner. Descriptors,
such as “she” and “he”, indicated the sex of the leader. The name Pat was chosen for the
leader because it is believed to be one of the most gender-neutral American names; many
people may think of Pat as being either a female or a male. This helped to minimize any
bias that could result from the name of the leader.
Other factors that could have potentially biased the ratings were considered when
writing the vignettes. The vignettes were written to be as neutral as possible so that
participants were not affected by the other information contained in the vignettes. The
name Smith, for the organization Smith Professional Services contained in the vignette,
was chosen because it was reported to be the most common surname in the 1990 census
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1990). Similarly, the salary was chosen because it was reported as
the two-year average median salary for the United States in 2006 according to the U.S.
Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
The work that was described in the vignettes (e.g., communicating with others,
maintaining a professional disposition, facilitating team performance, and completing
tasks that are relevant to your position) was based upon Campbell’s Theory of
Performance (Schmitt& Chan, 1998). This theory includes general job performance
dimensions, which are applicable to most jobs. Therefore, they were used to help
describe the employee’s overall work dimensions.
Finally, the vignettes were also constructed to include information regarding
aspects of job satisfaction taken from the Job in General Scale, the Job Descriptive Index,
and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaires. This gave participants information to
50
respond to regarding these dimensions when filling out information from the job
satisfaction measures. These aspects included information regarding their present job,
pay, and opportunities for promotion, supervisor, and coworkers. Prior to
experimentation, each vignette condition was reviewed and edited to ensure validity.
Several psychology professors, psychology graduate students, and undergraduate nonpsychology graduate students reviewed and edited the vignettes and reacted to the
leadership within the vignettes. There were four vignette conditions: female, autocratic
leader; female, democratic leader; male, autocratic leader; male, democratic leader. A
copy of each vignette condition is included in Appendix C.
Job Descriptive Index. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was constructed to
generate scores that indicate how satisfied a person is in different aspects of their job,
including work, pay, promotions, supervision, and people (Balzer et al., 1997). This 72
item measure asks respondents to rate the work they do at present by describing how well
each of the words or phrases describes their job; answers include either Y for yes (if it
describes your work), N for no (if it does NOT describe it), or ? (if you cannot decide).
The JDI consists of five facets including, work on present job, present pay, and
opportunities for promotion, supervision, and coworkers, with each having 9 or 18 items
per facet. Items consist of short words or phrases. For example, participants are asked to
rate how “fascinating” and “boring” their work is using the work on present job facet. In
the present study, these items are scored in their entirety to gain a global job satisfaction
measure for the participant.
51
The JDI was validated using a sequential research strategy of discriminant and
convergent validity within and across samples (Balzer et al., 1997). Cluster analysis and
factor analysis was used to demonstrate evidence of discriminant and convergent validity.
Results showed that the JDI was able to discern between different aspects of the job both
reliably and validly. Subsequent studies of the JDI have shown that it correlates with
other behavioral measures. Finally, the JDI has been proven to be reliable, having
coefficient alpha values between .86 and .91, while the supervision facet has an alpha
coefficient value of .91.
Job in General. The Job in General (JIG) scale was constructed to measure the
global satisfaction one feels for the job (Balzer, et. al., 1997). The JIG consists of 18
items and is given in conjunction with the JDI. It assesses a person’s long-term
evaluation of their job by having people respond to “Think of your job in general. All in
all, what is it like most of the time?” Similarly to the JDI, answers include either Y for
yes (if it describes your work), N for no (if it does NOT describe it), or ? (if you cannot
decide). Some examples of descriptors include, “pleasant, bad, ideal, and a waste of
time”. These items are scored in the current study in their entirety to gain a global job
satisfaction measure for the participant.
Convergent validity evidence was calculated by correlating the measure with
other satisfaction measures, including The Brayfield and Rothe, The Faces Scale, and a
simple numerical rating scale (-100 to +100; Balzer et al., 1997). Correlations with the
JIG ranged from .66 to .80. Construct validity evidence was demonstrated using patterns
52
of reliabilities of the test and 18 other measures using a sample of 680 employees.
Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .90 (N = 3566).
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
(MSQ) was made in response to the Work Adjustment Project, or the Minnesota Studies
in Vocational Rehabilitation, a group of studies that assess ones potential and evaluate
one’s work adjustment outcomes. Both short and long form of the MSQ measure
employee satisfaction in regards to varying aspects of the work and the workplace (e.g.,
security, pay; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967).
The short form consists of 20 questions, while the long form consists of 100
items. The MSQ items are scored in their entirety to gain a global satisfaction measure.
Both questionnaire forms use a 5-point response scale, which include response options
such as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. Example
items from the short form include “the chance to tell people what to do” and “the way my
job provides for steady employment”. Questions from the long form consist of twentyone different facets from social service and recognition, to supervision; the supervision
subscales include both an interpersonal/human relations and technical competence
component (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). In the present study, the MSQ
short form was used because similar employee satisfaction measures were also used in
conjunction with it. I did not want to inundate participants with a myriad of questions and
wanted to ensure the length of the study was kept to a minimum. Additionally, the
supervision subscales from the MSQ (long form) were used to measure participant’s
satisfaction with their supervisor.
53
Demographic & Organizational Questions. The demographics page consisted of
demographic and background information questions, such as participant’s sex, age, high
school information, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. In the California State
University, Sacramento information section, participants reported their majors and
minors, their grade point averages, and their year in school. The organizational questions
consisted of questions that further probed the participants’ feelings regarding their job
and the organization in the vignettes in which they worked. For example, one question
asked participants the top three reasons that they would stay working at their present job.
It listed several factors that may be important to employees, such as the supervisor,
salary, coworkers, and benefits. Other questions addressed reasons for leaving their
theoretical job and thoughts regarding their supervisor and the job they held. A copy of
the demographic and organizational form in its entirety can be found in Appendix D.
Design
The study consisted of a 2 x 2 x 2 between subjects design. The independent
variables were the leader’s sex, either male or female, and the leadership style, either
democratic or autocratic. The blocking variable was the locus of control of the
participant, either internal or external, while the dependent variable was the amount of
satisfaction the person had with their supervisor and overall job satisfaction. By using a
median split on the participant’s locus of control scores from the Internal Control Index,
they were assigned to either a high or low internal locus of control level. The participants
received one of four vignettes; the order in which the vignette conditions were
administered was randomized, but occurred in a block fashion. Meanwhile, the order in
54
which the inventories were administered (e.g., Job in General, Job Descriptive Index) was
also randomized.
There were many other cautionary procedures taken to minimize the potential
confounding and extraneous variables within this experiment. Control procedures
included having the same researcher administer the packets and adhere to the same script
for each participant (to minimize any bias); the vignettes were constructed to be similar
on all aspects except the leadership style and sex of the leader. Other measures taken (to
minimize any error effects) included having the research take place under the same
general conditions. Studies were completed in the same relative location in the research
rooms in Amador Hall at California State University, Sacramento. In addition, the
inventories were administered in a randomized fashion to decrease any chances of fatigue
or order effects. The thesis vignettes were randomly administered to ensure that the order
in which they were administered to participants did not affect the study’s results. The
vignettes also included information on various aspects of the job that was previously
demonstrated to affect employee satisfaction. This included masking the aspects of the
job that were actually being assessed, as well as including additional superfluous
information so that participants could have enough information to answer questions about
different aspects of the job. The language used in the vignettes was not leading and was
neutral to ensure that participants were not biased by the extra information contained in
the vignettes. The vignettes were also constructed to include actual numbers (e.g., for
the person’s salary, commute time) and gender neutral names (e.g., leader’s name) to
55
describe aspects of the person’s job. Collectively, these factors helped to make the
vignettes as realistic as possible, while controlling the experiment as much as possible.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from the respective introductory psychology courses;
they received ½-hour credit for participating in research. One hundred and sixty
undergraduates at California State University, Sacramento responded to the vignette
study. Participants only participated in the study once.
Students entered the research room and were seated; the researcher then distributed
consent forms for the participants to sign. After the participant completed the consent
form, the forms were placed in a separate folder to guarantee that they could not be traced
back to specific participants. The participants were informed that they could withdraw
from the study at any time without any penalties, except that they would be unable to
receive course credit for participating in the study. They were also informed to complete
the packet in order, and to not skip ahead or around within the packet. Following this, the
packet of materials was provided to the participants. Participants were instructed not to
place their name or any other identifying marks on the materials. The packets included
the Internal Control Index, one vignette condition, a Job in General Inventory, a Job
Descriptive Index, and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) and the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (long form: supervision subscale), as well as the
demographic questions. The order of the Job Descriptive Index, Job In General
Inventory, and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaires were determined by a randomized
block process to counterbalance them.
56
Participants first completed the Internal Control Index to assess the person’s locus of
control. Following this, they read the vignette condition they were given. After reading
the vignette, the participants completed the Job Descriptive Index, Job in General
Inventory, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (long form: supervision subscale), and the demographic and organizational
questions in relation to the job described in the vignette they received. The vignette
included a situation where the participant had to imagine that they were working at a
hypothetical organization, Smith’s Professional Services. Two independent variables
were contained in the vignette itself. In one version of the story, the employee had a
female autocratic leader, whereas in other versions of the story the employee had a
female democratic leader, male autocratic leader, or male democratic leader. The third
variable in the study was the locus of control of the participants; they were coded as
having an internal or external locus of control. In other words, a median split was
completed on locus of control scores to create the levels for that independent variable.
After participants completed the entire packet, the packets were collected and placed
together in a different folder from the one containing the consent forms, guaranteeing that
the packets could not be linked back to specific participants. The researcher orally
debriefed the participants, making sure to answer any questions they had, and gave them
the debriefing sheet. Everyone was thanked for their participation and was dismissed.
Once all of the data was collected, participants were scored on their locus of control, job
satisfaction, and supervision satisfaction.
57
Chapter 4
RESULTS
The independent variables in the study were leader sex (i.e., male, female),
leadership style (i.e., democratic, autocratic), and participant locus of control (i.e., high
internal, low internal), while the dependent variables were employee job satisfaction (as
measured with the Job Descriptive Index, Job in General Scale, and Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form)) and employee supervision satisfaction (as
measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (long form: supervision
subscale)). A 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was performed. No outliers were observed in the analysis; thus, all 160 participants were
included in the analysis, with females consisting of 82.5% of the sample. Participants
were ethnically diverse and their ages ranged from 18 to 30 years old, with an average
age of 20 years. Evaluation of the properties of the data set (e.g., normality, equality of
variance-covariance matrices) determined that the data met the necessary statistical
assumptions to support the analysis. An alpha level of .05 was used for all multivariate
statistical tests and a Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate the univariate effects
using .0125 as the corrected alpha level.
The results of this study are organized in the following way: dichotomizing locus
of control is discussed, then the interaction effects are addressed, and finally, any main
effects for the independent variables are then analyzed.
58
Dichotomizing Locus of Control
A median split was performed on the participant scores from the Internal Control
Index to assign participants to either a high or a low internal locus of control group. The
mean scores ranged from 2.71 to 4.57 and the distribution had a median score of 3.65.
Based on whether each participant’s score was above or below the median, respondents
were assigned to either a high or a low internal locus of control group. Using this scoring
method, participants in the high internal locus of control group had a mean score of 3.68
and higher and participants in the low internal locus of control group had a mean score of
3.65 and below. After the median split, the means and standard deviations were
calculated for the high internal locus of control group (M = 3.94, SD = .20) and low
internal locus of control group (M = 3.38, SD = .25).
Interaction Effects
Results showed all interaction effects were non-significant. It was expected that
participants would be less satisfied when they were led by autocratic women than when
they were led by autocratic men (Eagly et al., 1992), but this was not supported by the
current study. Additionally, it was hypothesized that those participants who had higher
internal locus of control would be less satisfied with autocratic leaders than those
individuals with less internal locus of control, but this was also not supported by the
current study (see Table 1).
59
Effects for the Independent Variables
Using Wilks’s criterion (see Table 1), the dependent variables were significantly
affected by leadership style (Wilks’s λ, F[4, 149] = 3.86, p < .005, η2 = .09). Univariate
ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure separately to determine the locus
of the statistically significant main effect. From Table 1, we can see that leadership style
significantly affected Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (long form: supervision
subscale), The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), and the Job In General
satisfaction scores. Means and standard deviations of the dependent variables for the two
groups are presented in Table 2. It appears that those individuals under democratic
leadership styles have higher job satisfaction than those under autocratic leadership.
Using Wilks’s criterion (see Table 1) the dependent variables were also
significantly affected by locus of control (Wilks’s λ, F[4,149 ] = 2.46 , p < .048, η2 =
.06). Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure separately to
determine the locus of the statistically significant main effect. From Table 1, we can see
that locus of control statistically affected the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short
form). Means and standard deviations of the dependent variables for the two groups are
presented in Table 3. It appears that those individuals with higher internal locus of
control had higher employee satisfaction than those with lower internal locus of control.
No statistically significant leader sex effects were observed for employee
satisfaction, thus showing no support for my hypothesis.
60
Table 1
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Employee Satisfaction Measures
Multivariate
Univariate
Source
df
Fa
JDI
JIGb
MSQb
MSQ (Sup)b
F ratios for Leadership Sex
MSE
4
.647
.25
.07
1.47
.51
.52
.15
1.18
.74
F ratios for Leadership Style
MSE
4
3.86
3.84
1.04
6.41*
2.21
9.51*
2.78
12.61*
7.90
F ratios for Locus of Control
MSE
4
2.46
2.00
.54
5.44
1.88
6.88*
2.01
1.79
1.12
F ratios for Leader Sex*
Leadership Style
MSE
4
.48
.85
1.44
.13
.00
.23
.50
.04
.00
F ratios for Leader Sex*
Locus of Control
MSE
4
.11
.11
.44
.51
.73
.04
.13
.32
.11
1.69
.07
.00
.03
.58
.02
.00
2.34
.08
.28
.21
.63
.03
.08
.13
F ratios for Leadership Style* 4
Locus of Control
MSE
.95
.68
F ratios for Leader Sex*
4
.90
Leadership Style*Locus of Control
MSE
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilks’s criterion.
a. Multivariate df = 4, 149
b. Univariate df = 7, 152
*p< .0125.
61
Table 2
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Employee Satisfaction Measures as a Function
of Leadership Style
Leadership Style
JDI
JIG
MSQ
MSQ: Supervision
Democratic
Mean
N
Std. Dev
1.98
80
.54
2.26
80
.54
3.70
80
.55
3.69
80
.72
Autocratic
Mean
N
Std. Dev
1.84
80
.51
2.01
80
.64
3.43
80
.54
3.24
80
.85
62
Table 3
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Employee Satisfaction Measures as a Function
of Locus of Control
Locus of Control
JDI
JIG
MSQ
MSQ: Supervision
Lower Internal
Mean
N
Std. Dev
1.85
78
.46
2.02
78
.58
3.44
78
.45
3.37
78
.72
Higher Internal
Mean
N
Std. Dev
1.97
82
.58
2.24
82
.62
3.68
82
.63
3.56
82
.89
63
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The literature on leadership style, leader sex, and employee locus of control
suggests that leaders and employee locus of control might affect employee satisfaction.
For example, someone who is under authoritative leadership may be less satisfied than
someone under democratic leadership. The focus of this study was to examine the role of
leader sex, leadership style, and employee locus of control and to investigate how these
factors might influence employee satisfaction. This section will examine the findings in
light of the theoretical framework and methods used in this study.
We first examined whether leader sex played a role with employee satisfaction.
We expected that participants would be more satisfied with male leaders than female
leaders (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Inconsistent with our hypothesis, results showed that
leader sex did not significantly affect employee satisfaction.
Some experiments, which had participants rate theoretical leaders, have shown
bias against women. Davidson and Burke’s (2000) review of 49 experiments showed that
men were preferred over women for masculine type jobs, like auto salesperson, while
women were preferred over men for feminine type jobs. Other researchers have also
shown that male leaders are preferred over female leaders (Merrick, 2002). Eagly et al.
(1992) conducted a meta-analysis regarding gender and leader evaluations on written
vignettes and confederate studies using mostly college students. Results generally
showed that females were evaluated slightly more negatively than male leaders,
especially when exhibiting autocratic behavior.
64
The results of the current study are interpreted in relation to the role congruity
theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Role congruity theory examines sex differences regarding
negative attitudes toward women and the impact that gender roles have on employee
satisfaction. In particular, I consider that the lack of significant results between the male
and female leaders may be attributed to leadership becoming a more androgynous term,
meaning that there was minimal perceived incongruity between the gender roles and
leadership roles.
It has been suggested that the type of industry in which female leaders are
employed could heighten the perceived incongruity between the gender roles and the
leadership roles (Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006). In the current study there was
no mention of the type of industry in which the individual worked. Since the vignettes
were constructed to be as neutral as possible on all factors except the independent
variables, it is possible that participants perceived the industry to be gender neutral. This
would help explain why they were perceived similarly. It is also possible that the
stereotype of men as leaders has decreased as well, and that may be why there was less
prejudice found against women. After all, there has been a monumental change in gender
equality over the years, especially since most women are employed in the paid workforce
(Eagly & Diekman, 2005) and because there are more female managers than ever before.
This suggests that gender egalitarianism is slowly becoming more prominent in today’s
society, even in the workplace (Vianello & Siemienska, 1990).
It is also possible that the results are reflecting generational differences that exist.
Since most of the sample size were of a younger generation (ages ranged from 19 to 30
65
years old, with a mean age of 20 years), it is possible that this sample is reflecting new
cultural differences. These participants have been raised in an era where women have
had equal rights and have been employed in the workforce, possibly even as managers. If
leadership has become a more androgynous term, it is possible that the participants have
internalized that. Although the current research may have found no difference between
employee satisfaction with female and male leaders, this does not imply that sex roles are
still not present and that the sexes are equal. Instead, it may suggest that the equality
between the genders has improved and continued to change, but has not necessarily
disappeared overall.
Although we must be cautious about drawing inferences based on null findings, it
is possible that as more women have recently become career oriented and have sought
higher leadership positions, the equality and balance between the sexes has improved. In
turn, this may have weakened the impact of traditional occupational roles and shifted
society’s perception of leadership into a more androgynous role (Wood & Eagly, 2002).
Consistent with role congruity theory, if leadership has indeed become more
androgynous, then this may help in explaining why female leaders were evaluated
similarly to male leaders in the present study.
This study also investigated the relationship between leadership style and
employee satisfaction. Since people typically are not satisfied with autocratic leaders, it
was hypothesized that respondents would be more satisfied with democratic leaders than
autocratic leaders (Looney, 2004). This was significant in the present study, meaning
that the overall mean employee satisfaction scores were statistically significant. In other
66
words, a democratic leadership style was associated with greater job satisfaction than an
autocratic leadership style was.
Some research has found that members under autocratic leadership are more
satisfied than groups led by democratic leaders, although this research seems to be rather
sparse (Foels et al., 2000). Other studies have found more dramatic differences in
member satisfaction between the democratic and autocratic leadership styles, where
employees are more satisfied with democratic leaders than autocratic ones (Thomas,
1992). Other researchers suggest that democratic leadership enhances the quality of
decisions that are made and increases member satisfaction (Bass, 1990).
The current study supports most other research and my own expectations, in that
the results suggest that people under democratic leadership are generally more satisfied
than people under autocratic leadership. The United States of America is a liberal and
individualistic culture that values the right for personal choices (Kim, Triandis,
Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). In regards to employees, it is logical that people
would be more satisfied in a workplace that is conducive to a more collaborative
relationship, where employees engage in the decision-making process, and their ideas are
addressed. When under a democratic/individualistic style, the employees have more
responsibility and personal achievement invested (Kagitcibasi, 1997). Furthermore, those
people who are more individualistic are inclined to weigh the costs and benefits of
situations and act according to what benefits them the most. People under autocratic
leadership often do not have responsibility in the decision making process, since choices
67
are made solely by the leader. Therefore, it seems understandable that participants in the
current study preferred a democratic leadership style to an autocratic one.
These results can also be interpreted in terms of how people respond to
aggressiveness and dominance in others. Since the sample was largely comprised of
females, it is possible that the respondents responded differently than if the study were
comprised of a mostly male sample. Since males are socialized to be more competitive
and dominant than women, it is possible that women will respond more negatively to
autocratic leadership because it is incongruent with their belief system. Kushell and
Newtan (1986) further suggest that the gender of the subordinate and the leadership style
of the leader are important moderating variables in employee satisfaction.
Collectively, this suggests that the current research is congruent with past
research. In the present study, participants were more satisfied with democratic
leadership over autocratic leadership. This implies that democratic leadership may be
another factor that contributes to employee satisfaction. Although the current study does
not suggest that democratic leadership is useful to use in all situations and contexts, it
supports the belief that democratic leadership may lead to more satisfied employees.
The third hypothesis focused on the degree of employee satisfaction in regards to
different leadership styles and sex of the leader. It was expected that participants would
be less satisfied when they were led by autocratic women than when they were led by
autocratic men (Eagly et al., 1992). Results showed that the interaction between
leadership style, leader sex, and overall employee satisfaction was not significant, thus
showing no support for my hypothesis.
68
Some research suggests sex stereotypes are still present in today’s society and
these gender roles spill over into leadership roles as well (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). This
results in women facing more prejudice, especially when they engage in leadership styles
that are incongruent with their gender roles (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
Women are forced to either adhere to gender roles and be viewed a poor leader or adhere
to leadership roles and be subjected to negative consequences. This double standard has
often left women in confusion about how they should act in leadership roles.
Further research conducted by Eagly et al. (1995) suggests that there was no
difference in leadership effectiveness between male and female leaders once all the
studies in their meta-analysis were aggregated. This suggested that when women were
managers, they were as equally as effective as men, even though they faced possible
barriers and disadvantages as leaders. However, this generalization may not be
applicable in all settings (e.g., gender congeniality of leadership roles, type of
organization, level of leadership) but instead serves as a general tendency that is worthy
of notation. Eagly et al. (1995) also suggest that rater sex may affect a study’s results and
that leader sex does affect ratings, especially for gender congruent leadership positions.
In other words, leader effectiveness increased when gender roles and leadership roles
were congruent. Therefore, the leader gender and the specifics of the leadership role may
influence leader effectiveness.
Complicating this discussion are inconsistent and somewhat ambiguous and
unclear patterns regarding leader evaluations and leader sex. Conclusively, these
findings show evidence that leaders may receive similar evaluations in most settings,
69
even though they are differentially effective in many settings. Additionally, a myriad of
other factors can contribute to leader effectiveness (e.g., leader’s skill, training). The
current research suggests that although gender roles may spill over into organizational
roles, employee satisfaction was not significantly affected by the interaction between
leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control.
The relationship between employee satisfaction and locus of control was also
explored. It was hypothesized that those participants who had a lower internal locus of
control would exhibit lower job satisfaction than those with a higher internal locus of
control. This is because external locus of control is negatively related to job satisfaction
(Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). The main effect between internal locus of control and
overall employee satisfaction was found to be significant, showing support for our
hypothesis.
Consistent with past research, the present study found that those with higher
internal locus of control had higher employee satisfaction than those with lower internal
locus of control. Judge and Bono (2001) found that locus of control had an estimated
true score correlation of .32 with job satisfaction. Other research has shown that external
locus of control is negatively related to job satisfaction but that there was no difference
between men and women (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004).
Prior research has documented a correlation of negative affectivity on mental
health complaints and job-induced tension (Naswall, Sverke, & Hellgreen, 2005). This
indicates that negative people may be more likely to experience strain than those that
have a positive mindset. Positive affectivity has been shown to significantly affect job
70
dissatisfaction and mental health complaints. Furthermore, those with lower internal
locus of control have been shown to have higher mental health complaints,
dissatisfaction, and job induced tension compared to those with less external locus of
control.
The results of the present study are interpreted in regards to locus of control and
employee satisfaction. The significant findings support that personality variables (e.g.,
locus of control) may be an important moderator for satisfaction, but the extent of this is
unknown. Those people with lower internal locus of control may believe that other
people, the environment, fate, or chance determine events that happen to them. As
people think that other sources have more power and control over them, they believe that
their behaviors do not affect their current state, which then affects their satisfaction. If
people feel that they are not in control of their life, then they may be unsatisfied with
their current situation. Such implications could mean that one’s personality could
potentially affect other aspects of their work life (e.g., job satisfaction, productivity, job
stress, turnover). Therefore, there should be more theory development and empirical
research conducted to explore the relationship between personality characteristics and
their effect on employee satisfaction.
Finally, the last hypothesis involved the issue of employee satisfaction, locus of
control, leader sex, and leadership style. It was hypothesized that those participants who
had more internal locus of control would be less satisfied with autocratic leaders than
those people with external locus of control. This is because internal locus of control is
when people feel that reinforcement occurs because of their own actions, whereas people
71
with external locus of control believe that reinforcement occurs because of things other
than their own behavior (Meyers & Wong, 1988). Results showed the interaction
between internal locus of control, leader sex, and leadership style and overall employee
satisfaction was not significant.
Past research, which focused on personality variables in this discipline of
research, has evaluated how autocratic and democratic subordinates evaluate either
autocratic or democratic leaders. Research has shown that autocratic individuals tend to
prefer autocratic leaders over democratic ones (e.g., Cellar et al., 2001). No known
research has evaluated the effects of subordinate internal locus of control on leader
effectiveness ratings.
The current research did not find a significant difference in employee satisfaction
between varying leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control. Although leadership
style and locus of control significantly affected employee satisfaction, there was not a
significant interaction between leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control.
Although we must be cautious about drawing inferences based on null findings, it is
possible that leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control do not collectively affect
employee satisfaction. In other words, although the locus of control and the leadership
style may affect employee satisfaction, they do not directly interact and affect employee
satisfaction together. Personality variables, such as locus of control, may not interact
with external circumstances (e.g., leader sex, leadership style), but instead may be factors
that affect employee satisfaction. This may help in explaining why there were no
72
significant interactions between leader sex, leadership style, and employee locus of
control in the present study.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The present study has several issues and limitations that are worth our attention
and consideration. A major limitation was the small number and demographics of the
participants subjected to each condition, which prevented a more extensive data
examination. More specifically, all of the participants were undergraduates at the
California State University, Sacramento. Since the current study was completed with
undergraduates, and mostly female undergraduates (which may or may not be currently
employed) this could have biased the study’s results. This is because the undergraduate
sample may not be a representative sample of the population and may have had more
liberal views. Additionally, most of the participants used were psychology
students/students enrolled in a psychology course. It is possible that those people enrolled
in psychology courses may also be fundamentally different than people who take other
courses (e.g., engineering, nursing). Had the study been conducted using engineering (a
male dominated industry) and nursing students (a female dominated industry) different
results could have been obtained. Similarly, if actual employees (that were not enrolled
in school) were used in addition to the undergraduates, it is likely the results of the study
could have changed. Other factors (e.g., geographic location, sex, ethnicity, age of
participants) could have potentially affected the study as well. Therefore, the sample
may be fundamentally different than the population and not a representative sample of
73
the population as a whole. Future research may consider using a more representative
sample.
Other limitations included the design methodology used. The current study used
laboratory research methods to assess what may happen in real life situations. Although
some researchers suggest that laboratory research can be applicable to real world settings,
we must be cautious when interpreting these findings. Had we used real life situations in
the present study, it would have been difficult to control the extraneous variables.
Therefore, although there is real potential for the current study, we must be aware that
these results may not generalize to all real life situations easily, but probably reflect
culturally held beliefs.
Furthermore, the current study used vignettes, brief descriptions of the job they
held, along with other factors regarding their job. The vignettes were written to be
realistic to the respondent, and mirror issues that were easily understood by the
respondent (e.g., opportunities for promotion, leadership) and would occur in real life.
Meanwhile, they were written so that all details within the story were internally
consistent and provided enough contextual information for respondents to clearly
understand the situation being portrayed, but were ambiguous enough to ensure that
multiple solutions existed. The vignettes were consistent with the research question in
mind and carefully worded to ensure that both the leader sex and leadership style (both
the relevant variables being examined) were apparent, but did not directly influence the
respondent’s answer.
74
Another limitation of the vignette could have been the operationalization of the
leadership style variable in the vignette. Foels, et al. (2000) suggest that the potency of
operationalization moderates group member satisfaction when using artificial groups and
leadership. As the relative difference between the democratic and autocratic leadership
styles increased, the difference in satisfaction increased as well.
In the present study, the vignettes were written to be different enough so that
those people who reviewed them would be able to distinguish between the conditions, but
subtle enough so that participants would not be able to identify the variables that were
being manipulated in the study. Likewise, the democratic and autocratic leader’s
behaviors were written to be subtle behaviors of each leadership style to ensure that the
potency between conditions were visible, but not obvious. However, the distinction
between the conditions is subjective and the range in the democratic and autocratic
leadership continuum is vague, so it is unclear if the efforts to appropriately differentiate
between each leadership style were successful.
Despite these efforts to ensure the vignettes were properly constructed, the fact
that vignettes were used instead of a real world scenario might have biased the results. It
is possible that the reader did not fully synthesize the sex of the leader as they may have
done in real life. In other words, since they were merely reading the vignette, they did not
fully process all the components of having a male or female supervisor. On the other
hand, this can imply that leader sex does not, in and of itself, mean that employees will be
satisfied with his or her leadership. Rather it may imply that other attributes that are
associated with sex (e.g., interpersonal skills, gender roles) may affect the person’s
75
perceptions of the leader. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more research to examine
the relationship between leader sex, leadership style, and personality variables on
employee satisfaction.
Although this study used multiple satisfaction inventories (e.g., Job In General
Index, Job Descriptive Index, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire), all of which used
multiple item measures to assess employee satisfaction, there are other ways for assessing
how leaders and personality variables may affect organizational success and its
employees. Such examples include, but are not limited to, turnover rates, personal leave,
employee productivity, and performance reports. For example, employees are more
likely to use sick leave if they are unhappy at work. Further research on these factors
might help to understand the complex paradigm that is employee satisfaction.
The current research has the strength of a between-subjects design and was an
experiment that was carefully executed. However, the current study only explored
employee satisfaction in regards to leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control.
While these factors may affect employee satisfaction, they are not the sole factors that
contribute to employee satisfaction. Future research is needed to further examine other
factors that may affect employee satisfaction (e.g., personality variables). Other research
shows the importance of investigating these other factors to gain a more comprehensive
understanding about employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is a complex
paradigm; no one factor solely influences someone’s satisfaction, but instead a myriad of
factors may interact and affect employee satisfaction. A more thorough investigation is
essential to understand this multifaceted model.
76
Research Implications
The current study aimed to analyze categories of leader sex, leadership style, and
locus of control in relation to employee satisfaction. Even though the interactions did not
yield any significant results, this study still has contributed to a better understanding of
one or more complex variables included in the study.
As stated prior, many factors can affect employee satisfaction. Leaders and
personality variables are two important variables worthy of our attention, especially since
the interaction of personality variables, such as locus of control, and employee
satisfaction has not been extensively studied. Since more women are entering
management positions, traditional occupational roles may have shifted. The current study
has attempted to review how and if leader sex affects employee satisfaction.
Other implications of the current research suggest that training could be a viable
source to help increase employee satisfaction. Since people generally prefer democratic
leaders over autocratic ones, supervisors can be trained to exhibit characteristics that are
more consistent with the democratic leadership style (e.g., allowing employees to engage
in the decision making process). Some believe that women are ineffective leaders and
believe that training is needed to minimize gender issues in the workplace (Guadagno &
Cialdini, 2007). Organizations could also train women regarding social role theory and
impression management so they are aware and can further address it. Further coaching
would also encourage women to enter leadership roles. This will decrease the likelihood
that women will self-select themselves out of leadership roles and help to increase female
representation in leadership (Killeen, Lopez-Zafra, & Eagly, 2006).
77
Although women may not be adequately represented in management positions,
there are still many successful women in the corporate world (Guadagno & Cialdini,
2007). These women may use a hybrid technique of masculine and feminine impression
management tactics in their leadership style. It is possible that as more and more women
enter into the male dominated industries (e.g., females in the automotive industry, women
in politics) these gender roles will become more androgynous.
The current study also suggests that this information may be helpful in developing
new measures that assess or predict employee retention. Both the leadership style and the
locus of control of the individual are factors that may affect employee satisfaction and in
turn affect employee retention and organizational success. More research is necessary to
see the correlation of these factors and to address how employee satisfaction can be used
in predicting employee retention.
Although research has shown that women are not equal to men in many aspects
all over the world (e.g., Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, & Schyns, 2004) and may still not be
equal within the United States of America, there has been an increase in women’s
education, so much that young women have become more educated than young men
(Eagly, 2007). When women do encounter barriers, organizational change can counteract
or weaken these barriers. Likewise, as more women become successful, especially in
male dominated societies, it is likely that the biases that exist will be reduced.
Acknowledging problems associated with employee satisfaction is only the first
step in the process. Collectively, this information can be used to develop new ways of
counteracting employee dissatisfaction and instead create a positive working environment
78
for everyone. Since employee satisfaction is critical for organizational success, it is
important to attend to those factors that will increase employee satisfaction. Then
management, human resources, and employees alike can work to try to increase
employee satisfaction.
The implications of this study can be important also when considering personality
variables and their effect on employee satisfaction. In particular, organizations may
benefit from addressing the nature and the degree of employee personality to better assist
with managing them. Managers should become more sensitive and familiarize themselves
with different factors of employee satisfaction to ensure they are better able to understand
employees and create an environment where employees are more satisfied and the
organization is more successful. Not only must organizations be more conducive to
change, but a broader cultural change is necessary to ensure that employees, managers,
and organizations alike are empowered. It is important that they have the foundational
knowledge, skills, desires, and opportunities to succeed so the organization can flourish
as well.
79
APPENDIX A
Human Subjects Application
Consent Form
I hereby agree to participate in research that will be conducted by Michelle Garbato.
In this research, I will receive a packet of material containing some demographic
questions, some inventories and a situation to read. Before I read the situation I will be
asked to fill out an inventory; after reading the situation, I will also be asked to complete
other inventories concerning the satisfaction I feel towards the situation.
The research will take place in one of the research rooms on the third floor of
Amador Hall and will require 30 minutes of my time.
I understand that this research may have the following benefits:
I understand that I will receive one half-hour of credit toward satisfying the
Psychology Department’s research participation requirement by participating in this
study.
I understand that this research may have the benefit of helping to increase my
knowledge of relations between people and of helping to increase my knowledge of
research methods.
I understand that there is a risk that I may have feelings of being uncomfortable
with some of the material in this study; however, I also understand that I may discontinue
my participation at any time without any penalty other than loss of research credit and
that the investigator may discontinue my participation at any time. I also understand that
my responses will not be examined individually, but only be used to generate group
information, maintaining my confidentiality.
This information was explained to me by Michelle Garbato. I understand that she
will answer any questions I may have now or later about this research. Michelle Garbato
can be reached at imgarbanzo@hotmail.com.
Signature:
Date:
80
Procedure
The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of gender, leadership style, and
locus of control on employee satisfaction. This was assessed using vignettes that were
based on a combination of two independent variables. The experimental design is a 2 x 2
x 2 between subjects design.
Before reading the vignettes, participants will fill out the Internal Control Index to
assess the person’s locus of control. Following this, they will read the vignette. After
reading the vignette, the participant will complete the Job Descriptive Index, Job in
General Inventory, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) and the
supervision subscales from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (long form). The
Job Descriptive Index measures the five facets of satisfaction, including work on present
job, present pay, and opportunities for promotion, supervision, and coworkers. The Job
in General Inventory and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) measures
the person’s overall global job satisfaction. Meanwhile, the supervision facets (from the
Minnesota Satisfaction (long form)) measure the person’s satisfaction in terms of
supervision in both technical and human relations aspects. Once all of the data have been
collected, participants will be scored on their locus of control, overall satisfaction level,
as well as their supervision satisfaction.
The vignette includes a situation where the participant has to imagine that they are
working at a hypothetical organization, Smith’s Professional Services. Two independent
variables are contained in the vignette itself. In one version of the story, the employee
has a female, autocratic leader, whereas in other versions of the story the employee has a
female, democratic leader, male, autocratic leader, or male, democratic leader. The third
independent variable in the study is the level of locus of control of the participants: they
are coded as having a high or low internal locus of control.
The dependent variable in this study is the amount of overall job satisfaction and
supervision satisfaction that the employee has. The 18 questions from the Job in General
(JIG) Scale, 72 questions from the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), and 20 questions from the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; short form) were used to assess the person’s
overall job satisfaction. The JIG and JDI items are assessed on a 3-point response scale
using responses such as Y for yes (if it describes their work), N for no (if it does not
describe it) and ? (if they cannot decide). The 20 questions from the MSQ (short form)
used a 5-point scale, using response options such as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral,
dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. Finally, the questions from the MSQ (long form)
supervision facets (technical and human relations) were used to assess satisfaction with
their supervisor. Responses to these items also used a 5-point response scale, which
includes response options such as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very
dissatisfied.
When students enter the research room and are seated, the researcher will distribute
consent forms to sign. After signing and returning them to the researcher, the consent
forms will be placed together in a separate folder to ensure that they cannot be traced
back to the experimental materials of particular participants. Then a script of initial
81
instructions will be read to the participants (Appendix A). Following that, the packet of
materials will be provided to the participants who will be instructed to not place their
name or any other identifying mark on the materials. This packet will include: an Internal
Control Index, one of four vignettes, the Job in General Inventory and Job Descriptive
Index, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), and the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire supervision subscales from the long form. The Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire items from the long and short form will be combined and
randomized. This is to further block the participant from knowing what is being
manipulated. Then the order in which the Job Descriptive Index scales are given will
also be randomized (e.g., supervision, coworkers) but will be administered together in a
bunch so that it stays as one inventory. Finally, the order of the Job Descriptive Index,
Job In General Inventory, and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire inventories will be
determined by a randomized block process. The demographic and organizational
questions will attached last.
After participants have completed all of their tasks, the packets will be collected and
placed together in a different folder from the one containing the consent forms; this will
ensure that the packets will not be able to be linked to specific participants. The
researcher will then orally debrief the participants, answer any questions they may have
at that time, and hand out the debriefing page for participants to keep. Everyone will then
be thanked for their participation and will be dismissed.
82
Debriefing
The Effects of Leader Sex, Leadership Style, and Locus of Control on Employee
Satisfaction
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three independent
variables: the locus of control of the participant, the sex of the leader, and the leadership
style of the leader. The dependent variable, was the amount of employee satisfaction as
measured by the Job Descriptive Index, Job in General, and Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire items that you completed after reading the vignette.
Hypotheses and Supporting Research: Research by Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky
(1992) has shown that people accept autocratic male leaders better than they do autocratic
female leaders. Role congruity theory further elaborates that men are evaluated more
positively than women (because they are perceived to be leaders) and are more likely to
succeed in leadership positions than their female counterparts. Further research suggests
that overall subjects were more satisfied with democratically led groups, but the sex of
the leader did not affect the subordinate’s satisfaction level.
In the present research, I wanted to see if participants would be more satisfied in
situations with male leaders than female leaders overall and to see if participants would
be less satisfied when they were led by autocratic women than when they were
supervised by autocratic men. However, because people typically are not satisfied with
autocratic leaders in general, I hypothesized that respondents would be more satisfied
with democratic leaders than autocratic leaders. Furthermore, I hypothesized that those
who had a lower internal locus of control would exhibit lower job satisfaction than those
with a higher internal locus of control. Finally, I hypothesized that those participants that
have higher internal locus of control will be less satisfied with autocratic leaders than
those people with lower internal locus of control.
To test my hypotheses, I used vignettes—short stories that were different only in
the sex and leadership style of the leader. After reading the vignette, you completed the
Job Descriptive Index, the Job in General Scale, the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (short form) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire supervision
subscales from the long form. The characteristics that these inventories collectively
measure are overall satisfaction and employee satisfaction on five levels, including work
on present job, present pay, and opportunities for promotion, supervision, and coworkers.
Once all of the data is collected, I will score the locus of control and satisfaction
inventories to assess the locus of control and satisfaction of employees whom had
different sex and leadership style supervisors. I will then perform a multivariate analysis
of variance to test my hypothesis.
Psychological Services: If this research has made you feel uncomfortable and you feel
that you may want to talk with someone about these feelings, you may contact the
Sacramento State Student Health Center on campus, as there are psychological services
83
available to you on the second floor of the Health Center; the phone number there is 916278-6416.
Contact Information: The results of this study will be available the last week of the next
semester. If you would like further information about this study or have questions
regarding this study, please contact imgarbanzo@hotmail.com.com at your convenience.
84
APPENDIX B
Instructions (Read to Participants)
My name is Michelle Garbato. Let me first of all thank you for taking part in this research
study. In a moment we can begin the research, but first I would like to go over a few
things with you:
1.
Please read the packet thoroughly, making sure to pay attention to all aspects of
the packet. Make sure that your answers are well thought out. However,
remember that all the answers are subjective and that there is no right or wrong
answers.
2. Please go through your packet and complete the scales and other materials in the
exact order as they appear.
3. Please answer every question in the packet to the best of your ability. If you have
any questions than please feel free to ask me for assistance.
4. I will administer a debriefing sheet when you are all through, and I will return
your research card, which will be stamped with one half hour of credit.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
85
APPENDIX C
Vignettes
Authoritarian (Autocratic leadership): Female Leader
You have been working at an organization called Smith Professional Services for
approximately two and a half years and have been promoted once and received two
raises. The company expects its employees to follow the typical policies regarding
punctuality, stealing, morality and ethics, as well as general guidelines surrounding dress
code, internet and email use, ownership of copyright and design and the use of the
company facilities. Smith Professional Services has been in business for approximately
50 years and has relatively stable job security. You make a salary of $47,584 per year,
while having to work only minimal overtime. The current work you do consists of
communicating with others, maintaining a professional disposition, facilitating team
performance, and completing tasks that are relevant to your position.
Occasionally you will receive special projects to complete, which will allow you to work
on assignments of varying difficulty. You also train and guide new subordinates,
although the bulk of your time is spent conducting projects. You are undoubtedly skilled
at your job and show promise for a successful future. You receive a sufficient amount of
praise for the work you do and are respected by the subordinates that you train. You are
in a second level position that consists of a unique series of five promotional positions.
You consider conditions of the workplace to be ok; in other words, you do not work in a
state of the art facility, but it suits your needs.
A typical day consists of working a shift from nine am to five-thirty pm, in which you
have a ten-minute commute. You work in your own beige colored cubicle for some of the
day; although you may travel a fair amount depending on the project you are working on.
You always have work to do; but you have a minimal amount of independence and
minimal input in the decision-making process, and you are unable to choose which
projects you will participate in. All projects must be completed by the required deadline,
but if this is unavoidable then sound justification must be provided. Your unit consists of
about eleven people and you get along with most of them. There is one person in
particular that seems to annoy you, but you are able to interact with them professionally
and cordially.
Your immediate supervisor’s name is Pat. She has been your manager for one year and
three months and she is a reasonably competent upper level manager. Pat has just
announced she assigned four people to work on a new project, one of which is you. She
did not consult anyone prior to making this decision; instead she is requiring that each
person work on mandatory parts of the project. She gave you, and other members of the
86
project staff, a document that stated her expectations for exactly what, when, and how the
project must be completed. Each project staff member will be responsible for completing
their part of the project accurately and on time, even if that falls out of their specialty
area. Having known Pat for a while now, you have noticed that Pat always controls her
department in this way even if the project falls out of her area of expertise. Pat tends to
handle complaints, problems, training, praise, and punishment in this same structured and
dictated way. She always seems to make decisions independently or with little or no
input from the staff, even if it goes against the project staff or organization’s interest.
One day you are sitting at your desk thinking about your current position.
Reflecting back on the last two and a half years, you begin to think about your job.
Knowing what you ideally want within an organization, you start comparing your current
job to your ideal job. In order to assess how satisfied you are with your current job you
decide to take some satisfaction inventories. Remembering to read all instructions
carefully and answer the items thoughtfully, you begin to complete the inventories
starting on the following page.
87
Participative Leadership (Democratic Leader); Female Leader
You have been working at an organization called Smith Professional Services for
approximately two and a half years and have been promoted once and received two
raises. The company expects its employees to follow the typical policies regarding
punctuality, stealing, morality and ethics, as well as general guidelines surrounding dress
code, internet and email use, ownership of copyright and design and the use of the
company facilities. Smith Professional Services has been in business for approximately
50 years and has reasonably stable job security. You make a salary of $47,584 per year,
while having to work only minimal overtime. The current work you do consists of
communicating with others, maintaining a professional disposition, facilitating team
performance, and completing tasks that are relevant to your position.
Occasionally you will receive special projects to do, which will allow you to complete
assignments of varying difficulty. You also train and guide new subordinates, although
the bulk of your time is spent conducting projects. You are undoubtedly skilled at your
job and show promise for a successful future. You receive a sufficient amount of praise
for the work you do and are respected by the subordinates that you train. You are in a
second level position that consists of a unique series of five promotional positions. You
consider conditions of the workplace to be ok; in other words, you do not work in a state
of the art facility, but it suits your needs.
A typical day consists of working a shift from nine am to five-thirty pm, in which you
have a ten-minute commute. You work in your own beige colored cubicle for some of the
day; although you may travel a fair amount depending on the project you are working on.
You always have something to do and you are given a moderate amount of independence
and input in the decision-making process, allowing you to suggest which projects you
want to participate in. If you do not complete projects on time then you are granted
extensions if you have an acceptable justification. Your unit consists of about eleven
people and you get along with most of them. There is one person in particular that seems
to annoy you, but you are able to interact with them professionally and cordially.
Your immediate supervisor’s name is Pat. She has been your manager for approximately
one year and three months and is a reasonably competent upper level manager. She has
just announced a project in which she will need four people to participate. She is asking
for knowledgeable volunteers to help complete the project so that she can then designate
work for it. If she does not receive four volunteers, then she will request people to work
on it. She will also give the project team guidance and will take suggestions as to exactly
what, when, and how the project should be completed. Therefore, not all of the project
responsibility will fall on one person; instead the people working on it can discuss which
parts of the assignment are best suited for each project team member so that each person
contributes in their specialty area. Then Pat will assign each project team member a
specific assignment to complete. Having known Pat for a while now, you have noticed
88
that Pat always runs her department this way even if this falls out of her area of expertise.
Pat tends to handle complaints, problems, training, praise, and punishment in the same
flexible and creative way. She always tries to make decisions with team input, so that it
is in line with the team or organization’s interest.
One day you are sitting at your desk thinking about your current position.
Reflecting back on the last two and a half years, you begin to think about your job.
Knowing what you ideally want within an organization, you start comparing your current
job to your ideal job. In order to assess how satisfied you are with your current job you
decide to take some satisfaction inventories. Remembering to read all instructions
carefully and answer the items thoughtfully, you begin to complete the inventories
starting on the following page.
89
Authoritarian (Autocratic leadership): Male Leader
You have been working at an organization called Smith Professional Services for
approximately two and a half years and have been promoted once and received two
raises. The company expects its employees to follow the typical policies regarding
punctuality, stealing, morality and ethics, as well as general guidelines surrounding dress
code, internet and email use, ownership of copyright and design and the use of the
company facilities. Smith Professional Services has been in business for approximately
50 years and has relatively stable job security. You make a salary of $47,584 per year,
while having to work only minimal overtime. The current work you do consists of
communicating with others, maintaining a professional disposition, facilitating team
performance, and completing tasks that are relevant to your position.
Occasionally you will receive special projects to complete, which will allow you to work
on assignments of varying difficulty. You also train and guide new subordinates,
although the bulk of your time is spent conducting projects. You are undoubtedly skilled
at your job and show promise for a successful future. You receive a sufficient amount of
praise for the work you do and are respected by the subordinates that you train. You are
in a second level position that consists of a unique series of five promotional positions.
You consider conditions of the workplace to be ok; in other words, you do not work in a
state of the art facility, but it suits your needs.
A typical day consists of working a shift from nine am to five-thirty pm, in which you
have a ten-minute commute. You work in your own beige colored cubicle for some of the
day; although you may travel a fair amount depending on the project you are working on.
You always have work to do; but you have a minimal amount of independence and
minimal input in the decision-making process, and you are unable to choose which
projects you will participate in. All projects must be completed by the required deadline,
but if this is unavoidable then sound justification must be provided. Your unit consists of
about eleven people and you get along with most of them. There is one person in
particular that seems to annoy you, but you are able to interact with them professionally
and cordially.
Your immediate supervisor’s name is Pat. He has been your manager for one year and
three months and he is a reasonably competent upper level manager. Pat has just
announced he assigned four people to work on a new project, one of which is you. He did
not consult anyone prior to making this decision; instead he is requiring that each person
work on mandatory parts of the project. He gave you, and other members of the project
staff, a document that stated his expectations for exactly what, when, and how the project
must be completed. Each project staff member will be responsible for completing their
part of the project accurately and on time, even if that falls out of their specialty area.
Having known Pat for a while now, you have noticed that Pat always controls his
department in this way even if the project falls out of his area of expertise. Pat tends to
90
handle complaints, problems, training, praise, and punishment in this same structured and
dictated way. He always seems to make decisions independently or with little or no input
from the staff, even if it goes against the project staff or organization’s interest.
One day you are sitting at your desk thinking about your current position.
Reflecting back on the last two and a half years, you begin to think about your job.
Knowing what you ideally want within an organization, you start comparing your current
job to your ideal job. In order to assess how satisfied you are with your current job you
decide to take some satisfaction inventories. Remembering to read all instructions
carefully and answer the items thoughtfully, you begin to complete the inventories
starting on the following page.
91
Participative Leadership (Democratic Leader); Male Leader
You have been working at an organization called Smith Professional Services for
approximately two and a half years and have been promoted once and received two
raises. The company expects its employees to follow the typical policies regarding
punctuality, stealing, morality and ethics, as well as general guidelines surrounding dress
code, internet and email use, ownership of copyright and design and the use of the
company facilities. Smith Professional Services has been in business for approximately
50 years and has reasonably stable job security. You make a salary of $47,584 per year,
while having to work only minimal overtime. The current work you do consists of
communicating with others, maintaining a professional disposition, facilitating team
performance, and completing tasks that are relevant to your position.
Occasionally you will receive special projects to do, which will allow you to complete
assignments of varying difficulty. You also train and guide new subordinates, although
the bulk of your time is spent conducting projects. You are undoubtedly skilled at your
job and show promise for a successful future. You receive a sufficient amount of praise
for the work you do and are respected by the subordinates that you train. You are in a
second level position that consists of a unique series of five promotional positions. You
consider conditions of the workplace to be ok; in other words, you do not work in a state
of the art facility, but it suits your needs.
A typical day consists of working a shift from nine am to five-thirty pm, in which you
have a ten-minute commute. You work in your own beige colored cubicle for some of the
day; although you may travel a fair amount depending on the project you are working on.
You always have something to do and you are given a moderate amount of independence
and input in the decision-making process, allowing you to suggest which projects you
want to participate in. If you do not complete projects on time then you are granted
extensions if you have an acceptable justification. Your unit consists of about eleven
people and you get along with most of them. There is one person in particular that seems
to annoy you, but you are able to interact with them professionally and cordially.
Your immediate supervisor’s name is Pat. He has been your manager for approximately
one year and three months and is a reasonably competent upper level manager. He has
just announced a project in which he will need four people to participate. He is asking
for knowledgeable volunteers to help complete the project so that he can then designate
work for it. If he does not receive four volunteers, then he will request people to work on
it. He will also give the project team guidance and will take suggestions as to exactly
what, when, and how the project should be completed. Therefore, not all of the project
responsibility will fall on one person; instead the people working on it can discuss which
parts of the assignment are best suited for each project team member so that each person
contributes in their specialty area. Then Pat will assign each project team member a
specific assignment to complete. Having known Pat for a while now, you have noticed
92
that Pat always runs his department this way even if this falls out of his area of expertise.
Pat tends to handle complaints, problems, training, praise, and punishment in the same
flexible and creative way. He always tries to make decisions with team input, so that it is
in line with the team or organization’s interest.
One day you are sitting at your desk thinking about your current position.
Reflecting back on the last two and a half years, you begin to think about your job.
Knowing what you ideally want within an organization, you start comparing your current
job to your ideal job. In order to assess how satisfied you are with your current job you
decide to take some satisfaction inventories. Remembering to read all instructions
carefully and answer the items thoughtfully, you begin to complete the inventories
starting on the following page.
93
APPENDIX D
Demographic & Organizational Questions
Demographic Questions
Please fill out the following demographic information. It is strictly confidential and will
not be used for purposes other than for research purposes.
1.) Age ____
2.) Gender:
____ Male
____ Female
3.) Ethnic Background:
_____ American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
_____ Asian or Pacific Islander
_____ Black or African American
_____ Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin
_____ Middle Eastern
_____ White/European American
_____ Multi-Ethnic, specify: _______________
_____ Other, specify: _____________________
4.) Level of Education:
_____ Freshman
_____ Sophomore
_____ Junior
_____ Senior
_____ Graduate
5.) _____ Cumulative GPA
6.) Major(s) ____________________________
7.) Minor(s) ____________________________
94
Organizational Questions
Please fill out the next questions in response to the situation you read.
1.) What are the top THREE reasons you would stay at your present job? (Please
circle the top THREE that apply)
Salary
Interesting work
Benefits
Enjoy my coworkers
Sense of purpose/mission
Location is convenient
Challenging job assignments
Flexibility in work hours
Good boss
Work assignments vary
Feel appreciated for what I do
Education and development
No time to look for new job
Career opportunities
Autonomy
Perks (car, club membership, etc.)
2.) What are the top THREE reasons you would leave your present employer for
another? (Please circle the top THREE that apply)
Salary
Career advancement
Challenging and interesting work
Better managers/better managed place
to work
Work/life balance
Higher calling/purpose/mission
Better benefits
Low morale
Location/commute
Education and development
opportunities
Unfair treatment
Company in financial jeopardy
More time off
Job security
3.) How would you rate the supervisor you work for? (please circle ONE choice)
a.) Exceptional (100% positive)
b.) Very Good (75% positive)
c.) Average (50% positive)
d.) Poor (25% positive)
e.) Very Poor (0% positive)
95
4.) How important is feeling appreciated for your work by your coworkers and
supervisors? (please circle ONE choice)
a.) Highly Important (100% important)
b.) Important (75% important)
c.) Both Important and Not Important (50% Important)
d.) Not Highly Important (25% Important)
e.) Not Important (0% Important)
5.) Are you presently considering leaving your job for another? (Please circle ONE
choice)
a.) Strongly Considering (100% that I am considering leaving)
b.) Considering (75% that I am considering leaving)
c.) Both considering and not considering (50% that I am considering leaving)
d.) Not Strongly Considering (25% that I am considering leaving)
e.) Not Considering (0% that I am considering leaving)
6.) How confident are you that you can find a better job elsewhere?(Please circle
ONE choice)
a.) Highly Confident (100% confident)
b.) Very Confident (75% confident)
c.) Confident (50% confident)
d.) Somewhat Confident (25% confident)
e.) Not Confident (0% confident)
7.) Please recall the sex of your supervisor without referring back to the situation
you read. (Please circle ONE choice)
a.) Female
b.) Male
c.) I don’t know
8.) Please recall your supervisor without referring back to the situation you read.
Please pick the statement which best describes your supervisor’s leadership.
(Please circle ONE choice)
a.) The supervisor makes decisions independently.
b.) The supervisor proposes decisions to the team, listens to their feedback
and then decides on decisions.
c.) The supervisor has the team propose decisions and then the supervisor
makes the final decisions.
d.) The supervisor makes joint decisions with the team.
e.) The supervisor gives full delegation of decisions to the team.
96
9.) Please recall your supervisor without referring back to the situation you read.
Pick the statement, which most accurately describes the supervision you received
(Please circle ONE choice).
a.) The supervisor always includes their employees in the decision making
process.
b.) The supervisor usually includes their employees in the decision making
process
c.) The supervisor sometimes includes their employees in the decision making
process.
d.) The supervisor rarely includes their employees in the decision making
process.
e.) The supervisor never includes their employees in the decision making
process.
Thank you for your participation.
97
REFERENCES
Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K.J., Bowling, N.A. (2009). Relationships between personality
variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23(3), 244-263.
Archer, J. & Lloyd, B. (1982). Sex and Gender. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar,
E. F., & Parra, L. F. (1997). Users' manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI;
1997 Revision) and the Job In General scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling
Green State University.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research &
managerial applications (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
Blau, G.J. (1987). Locus of control as a potential moderator of the turnover process.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 60, 21-29.
Catalyst (2002). 2002 Catalyst Census of women corporate officers and top earners in
the Fortune 500. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/174/2002-catalyst-census-of-women
corporate-officers-and-top-earners-of-the-fortune-500
Carroll, J. (2006). Americans prefer male boss to a female boss. Gallup News Service,
Retrieved April 26, 2010 from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/24346/americans-prefer-male-boss-female-boss.aspx
98
Cellar, D.F., Sidle, S., Goudy, K., O’Brien, D. (2001). Effects of leader style, leader sex,
and subordinate personality on leader evaluations and future subordinate
motivation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1) 61-72.
Chetwynd, J. & Hartnett, O. (1978). The sex role system: psychological and sociological
perspectives. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Davidson, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). A meta-analysis of sex discrimination in
simulated selection contexts. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
Deaux, K. & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D.Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Random House.
Denmark, F.L. (1977). Styles of leadership. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2(2), 99113.
Denmark, F.L. (1993). Women, leadership, and empowerment. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 17, 343-356.
Duttweiler, P. (1984). The Internal Control Index: A newly developed measure of locus
of control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 209-21.
Eagly, A. (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation,
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A.H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the
contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1-12.
99
Eagly, A. H. & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-incontext. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of
prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. (pp. 19-35). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Eagly, A. H. & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and
men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781-797.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing
women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A metaanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685-710.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J., & Makhijani, M.G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of
leaders; A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125-145.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G., & Klonsky, B.G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of
leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 322.
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior:
Evolved disposition versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423.
100
Emrick, A. (2006). The effects of single-sex student leadership positions on leadership
style used, perceptions of effective leadership, self-efficacy, domain identification,
intent to lead in the future, and perceptions and evaluations of leaders.
Unpublished thesis, University of Richmond, Virginia.
Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings:
Factor structure, generalizability and stability over time. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 293-310.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freeman, J. (2008). We will be heard: Women’s struggles for political power in the
United States. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Foels, R., Driskell, J.E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic
leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration. Small Group Research,
3(6), 676-701.
Garcia-Retamero, R. Lopez-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in malecongenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex
Roles, 55, 51-61.
Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S., & Cummings, L. (1989). The impact of personal control
on performance and satisfaction. Organization Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 43, 29-51.
Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression
management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56, 483-494.
101
Harris, M. (1993). The evolution of gender hierarchies: a trial formulation, in Miller, D.
(Eds), Sex and Gender Hierarchies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Huang, H. (2006). Understanding culinary arts workers: Locus of control, job
satisfaction and turnover intention. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
9(2/3), 151-168.
Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—selfesteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with
job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, &
C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social and
behavior applications (pp.1-49). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kileen, L. A., Lopez-Zaria, E., & Eagly, A. (2006). Envisioning oneself as a leader:
Comparisons of women and men in Spain and the United States. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 30(3), 312-322.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S-C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Introduction. In
U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp.1-16).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Korabik, K., Baril, G.L., & Watson, C. (1993). Mangers’ conflict management style and
leadership effectiveness: The moderating effects of gender. Sex Roles, 29, 405420.
102
Kushell, E. & Newton, R. (1986). Gender, leadership style, and subordinate satisfaction:
An experiment. Sex Roles, 14, 203-209.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1992). Durability and impact of the locus of control construct.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 411–414.
Lengermann, P.M. & Wallace, R.A. (1985). Gender in America: Social control and
social change. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Looney, J. D. (2004). Military leadership evaluations: Effects of sex, leadership style and
gender-role attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State
University, Arizona.
Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J., & Phillips, J.S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J.
G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment
views. Carbondale, Il.: Southern Illinois University Press.
Luthar., H.K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership
ability: Autocratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles, 35, 337-361.
Merrick, B. G. (2002). The ethics of hiring in the new workplace: Men and women
managers face changing stereotypes discover correlative patterns for success.
Competitiveness Review, 12(1), 94 – 115.
Meyers, L. S., & Wong, D.T. (1988). Validation of a new test of locus of control: The
Internal Control Index. Education and Psychological Measurement, 48, 753-761.
Muhonen, T., & Torkelson E. (2004). Work locus of control and its relationship to health
and job satisfaction from a gender perspective. Stress and Health, 20(1), 21-28.
103
Naswall, K., Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2005). The moderating role of personality
characteristics on the relationship between job insecurity and strain. Work &
Stress, 19(1), 37-49.
Newton, T.J., & Keenan, A. (1990). The moderating effect of the Type A behavior
pattern and locus of control upon the relationship between change in job demands
and change in psychological strain. Human Relations, 43(12), 1229-1255.
Nicolaou-Smokoviti, L. (2004). Business leaders’ work environment and leadership
styles. Current Sociology, 52(3), 407-427.
Nielson, J.M. (1978). Sex in society: Perspectives on stratification. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Oliver, J. E., Jose, P.E., & Brough, P. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the work
locus of control scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(5), 835851.
Pines, A.M., Dahan-Kalev, H. & Ronen, S. (2001). The influence of feminist selfdefinition on the democratic attitudes of managers. Social Behavior and
Personality, 29(6), 607-616.
Ptak, S.E., Roeder, A.D., Stephens, M., Gilad, Y., & Paabo, S. (2004). A DNA
recombination “hotspot” in humans is missing in chimps: Absence of the TAP2
human recombination hotspot in chimpanzees. Public Library of Science,
Retrieved April 4, 2010 from
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.002
0192
104
Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: An exploration of competing
paradigms. American Psychologist, 35, 902-910.
Rosenberg, B.G., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1972). Sex and identity. New York, New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Salazar, J., Pfaffenberg, C., & Salazar, L. (2006). Locus of control vs. employee
empowerment and the relationship with hotel managers’ job satisfaction. Journal
of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 5(1), 1-15.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100.
Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1998). Personnel selection: A theoretical approach;
foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sczesny, S, Bosak, J, Neff, D, Schyns, B. 2004. Gender stereotypes and leadership. Sex
Roles, 51, 631-645.
Sidani, Y.M. & Gardner, W.L. (2000). Work values among Lebanese workers. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5), 597-607.
Spector, P. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of
control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497.
Stokes, J. Riger, S., & Sullivan, M. (1995). Measuring perceptions of the working
environment for women in corporate settings. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
19, 533-549.
Storkey, E. (2001). Origins of difference: The gender debate revisited. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic.
105
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in
best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13, 73-90.
Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard
Business Review, 6, 73.
Thomas, J.D. (1992). A comparative analysis of the leadership styles of head football
coaches from traditionally black and white universities and colleges.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
U.S. Census Bureau: Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division (2006). Twoyear-average median household income by state: 2004-2006. Retrieved October
2, 2007 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html
U.S. Census Bureau: Population Division, Population Analysis & Evaluation Staff
(1990). Most common surnames in the U.S. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from
http://names.mongabay.com/most_common_surnames.htm
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S.F., Hart, C.M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership
in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40 (1), 1-13.
Vianello, M. & Siemienska, R. (1990). Gender equality: A comparative study of
discrimination and participation. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational
Rehabilitation (Whole No. XXII).
106
Whicker, M. L., & Kronenfeld, J.J. (1986). Sex role changes: Technology, politics, and
policy. New York, New York: Praeger Publishers.
Wood, W. & Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women
and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin,
128(5), 699-727.
Yoder, J.D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(4), 815-828.