PERCEPTION OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES OF WOMEN AS MANAGERS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEM
by
LIMKIMSUAN
Research report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration
June 1995 DEDICATION
To my beloved G.C
11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Juhary Haji Ali, for his assistance and suggestions.
I am also grateful to Professor Mirza S. Saiyadain, Project Co-Supervisor.
To my friends and colleagues who have assisted in the distribution and collection of the questionnaires and shared their experiences and opinions with me, a big thank you to them.
Special thanks to those respondents who had taken time off to complete the
questionnaire.
111 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE
DEDICATION 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS lV
ABSTRAK Vl
ABSTRACT Vll
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Scope and Significance of Study 2 1.3 Design of Investigation 3
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
2.1 Attitude Towards Women Employees 5 2.2 Sex-role Stereotypes 11
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 17
3.1 Measures 17 3.1.1 Attitude Towards Women as Managers 17 3.1.2 Job Related Factors 18 3.1.3 Demographic Profile 19
3.2 Samples 19 3.3 Data Collection 20
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 21
4.1 Sample Profile 21 4.2 Attitude Towards Women as Managers 22 4.3 Factors Affecting Growth Opportunities For Women 27
lV CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 28
5.1 Attitude Towards Women as Managers 28 5.2 Factors Affecting Growth Opportunities For Women 33 5.3 Implications 35 5.4 Limitations of the Study 37 5.5 Suggestions For Future Research 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY 40
APPENDICES 1. Questionnaire 43 2. List ofParticipating Organizations 49 3. Intercorrelations 50 4. Multiple Regression 51
v ABSTRAK
Penyelidikan ini telah dijalankan untuk memeriksa faktor-faktor yang menyumbang kepada perkembangan wanita sebagai pengurus. Faktor-faktor ini termasuk sikap pekerja terhadap wanita sebagai pengurus dan peranan stereotaip jantina. Kajian ini juga mengkaji kesan beberapa angkubah biografik and organisasi termasuk affiliasi sektor danjenis tanggungjawab dalam organisasi. Data dikumpulkan melalui satu soal selidik terhadap 133 pekerja dalam 12 organisasi di Pulau Pinang. Keputusan menunjukkan kedua-dua faktor biografik dan organisasi tidak mempengaruhi sikap terhadap wanita
sebagai pengurus. Keputusan ini dijelaskan perubahan signifikan dalam konsep peranan wanita dengan bertambahnyajumlah bilangan wanita yang memasuki tenaga kerja.
vi ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to examine the factors that contribute to the growth ofwomen as managers. These factors include the attitudes of fellow employees towards women as managers and sex-role stereotypes. This study also examined the effect of several biographic and organizational variables including sector affiliation and the nature of responsibilities in the organizations. Data was collected through a structured questionnaire on 133 employees working in 12 organizations in Penang. The results indicated that neither the biographic factors nor organizational factors affect the attitudes towards women as managers. The results are explained in the light of a significant change in the concept of women's role with the increasing number of women entering the workforce.
Vll Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Do women face more difficulties in progress than men?
Social and employment trends indicate that increasing number of women are rejecting traditional views of appropriate sex-role behavior and are seeking full-time employment in previously masculine dominated occupations. However, in positions of authority and responsibility within the organization, the integration of women has achieved limited
success.
Women shared the work of providing food and clothing and child rearing with their
spouses throughout history. During the Industrial Revolution when labour was needed
outside the home, women entered the workforce. In addition, the number of women
employed increased with the growing awareness that women, like the minority groups,
should experience the same privileges and recognition as men as valuable resource.
The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) legislation, an effort by the United Nations,
was a positive step towards increasing the number of women in employment. The
extent and type of contributions made by either sex varied considerably, however,
depending on the nature of the economy and on the cultural traditions of the particular
society. Traditionally women hired for executive posts have been limited to narrow
specialties outside the mainstream of the business. Management has been viewed as
requiring "masculine" attributes and few women have been perceived or have even
desired to be regarded as "unfeminine".
Further, most women have worked only "temporarily" when such activity did not
interfere with homemaking or motherhood. Regardless of talent, women have lacked the
1 motivation and opportunity to sustain careers. Not only timing but location of work
have restricted their employment opportunities.
1.2 SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
The world economy as a whole and that of Malaysia, in particular, has prospered over
the past three to four decades. International business has grown immensely from USD
110 billion in 1949 to USD2.3 trillion in 1978 (Kirk and Maddox, 1988) giving rise to
intense global competition. Business enterprises, local and multinational should seize
every opportunity to be at a competitive advantage. Making a choice of qualified
managers based on merit and inherent managerial qualities irrespective of gender should
be the current global practice if not the norm. Therefore, Malaysia, as a rapidly
developing country must ensure only competent and highly qualified managers are
selected and promoted to spearhead the management team of business enterprises.
Malaysian women are not gaining access to the boardroom as fast a pace or in large
numbers as their male counterpart. The Malaysian Business (June 1-15, 1989)
highlighted that in Malaysia, statistics indicate that women occupy about 7 out of every
1,000 available administrative and managerial positions and it was not even half of this
at 0.3% in 1981. This is not an indication of their lack in managerial capabilities but
rather their later start in making in-roads into and in penetrating the barriers put up by
the male dominated business management field. The Malaysian culture has relegated
women managers to the lower management levels and as such the Mal2.ysian men are
accustomed to having the Malaysian women take a 'back-seat'. The hiring organization
is biased in favour of men and women have been steered into and remain primarily in
the lower management level and clerical jobs.
2 It cannot be denied that women are a valuable resource that need to be effectively managed, motivated and utilized. Selecting only men to fill top level management is a biased attitude that fails to consider the full spectrum of available, qualified and fully capable and competent managers in the Malaysian labour market. Many progressive companies, in particular those in the West, realized the potential of fully utilizing women's talent and systematic efforts have been made to tap this resource. Unlike
Western countries, in Malaysia not many studies have been conducted on the attitude towards women as managers and it is hoped that this study in addition to contributing to the body of knowledge it would offer Malaysian companies some general insights towards achieving qualified managers to spearhead management team of business enterprises based on managerial qualities irrespective of gender.
This study was conducted to examine the factors that contribute to the growth of women as managers and the attitudes of fellow employees towards women as managers. The study also examined the effect of biographic variables including sector affiliation and the nature of responsibilities in the organization.
1.3 DESIGN OF INVESTIGATION
Data were collected through a structured questionnaire consisting of three parts. The first part consisted of 21 items from the Women as Managers Scale (WAMS) developed by Peters, Terborg and Taynor (1974) as a measure of stereotypic attitude towards women as managers. The second ~art rank ordered ten job related factors contributing to the growth and success of women as managers and the last part measured some biographic items.
3 The questiommires were distributed to men and women working in organizations representing both service and manufacturing sectors. The SPSS package was used to analyze the data collected.
4 Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter sur\reys the relevant literature on the perceptions of factors affecting the growth opportunities of women as managers. Attitudes towards women employees and sex role stereotypes are discussed.
2.1 ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN EMPLOYEES
Since this study focuses on the attitude towards women as a manager, it is necessa.ry to clarify what is meant by attitude. The term attitude is frequently used for describing people and explaining their behaviour. More precisely an attitude can be defined as "a persistent tendency to feel and behave in a particular way towards some object"
(Luthans, 1992). Attitudes are complex cognitive processes that can be characterized
three ways - they are both positive and negative, they persist for a long time and they
could be changed.
Attitude has three basic components - emotional, informational and behavioural. The
emotional component has to do with the feelings or affect about a person, object and
phenomenon. The informational component has to do with the belief and information
about the object of attitude. The behavioural component suggests an action of the
holder of the attitude consistent with the attitude. Attitudes play a significant role in
predicting, controlling and determining the organization related behaviour and can
become important input in policy formulation and its implementation.
Seen in the above light, attitude towards women in general and women employees in
particular has come a long way. Not very long ago men and perhaps a majority of
women used to believe that the right place for women is at home and the only
profession they should be in is homemaking. Over the years there has been a shift in the
5 attitude and the people have by and large come to see women as fellow employees working side by side. Besides other factors, legislation and general acceptance of equity principle has contributed to this change in attitude.
One of the major piece of legislation that has prompted more tolerant attitude towards women as fellow workers has been the amendment to Civil Rights Act of 1964 on what has come to be known as sexual harassment. In Malaysia, the existing constitution only pronounces that there should be no discrimination in race, creed and religion but no mention is made on discrimination based on sex.
Sexual harassment in workplace can be defined as unwelcome sexual adv Specifically, the guidelines to-date provide that above mentioned activities constitute illegal sexual harassment when: 1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a tem1 or condition of an individual's employment. 2. Submission to a rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decision affecting such individuals and 3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating a work environment that is intimidating, hostile or offensive. Some recent data, however, reveals that even today almost three-fourth of working women in USA report that they have been harassed at some point in their career. The general notion of equity has also contributed significantly to a relatively more positive attitude towards women employees. 6 The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 prohibits unequal pay for men and women who are performing equal work on jobs in the same establishment requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions. Pay differenc'3s between equal jobs can, however, be justified when that differential is based on: (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a piece-rate payment system which measures earnings by quality or quantity of production, or ( 4) any factor other than sex (e.g. different work shifts, different experience). In the 1970s and early 1980s, EPA lawsuits were common and several settlements were very costly to large employers. In addition to legal liability for paying women less than men who did the same work, companies claiming to have a merit pay system but unable to show a rational, fairly administered performance evaluation system did not fare well either. A great deal of the litigation in EPA suits has focussed on defining what is meant by "equal work" and determining possible exemptions to the law. In general, the courts have determined that jobs need not be identical but rather must be substantially equal for the EPA to apply. Thus, the courts have generally embraced an "equal pay for substantially equal work" interpretation of the EPA. The amount of litigation brought under the EPA fell sharply in the late 1980s since most companies are now in compliance. Is it fair that two people do jobs that are equally demanding, require the same amount of education and training, and have similar responsibilities, yet one receives significantly less pay than the other? Probably not! But such situations are actually not that 7 uncommon, with women being the ones earning the lesser amounts. What's the source of this inequity? Some economists would argue that it merely reflects the market forces of supply and demand. Another interpretation - and one gaining an increasing audience - is that these differences are the result of gender-based wage discrimination. It is not unusual for female-dominated jobs to pay less than male-dominated jobs, even though they are of equal or greater comparable value. This inequity has stimulated considerable interest in the concept of comparable wmih. This doctrine that holds that jobs equal in value to an organization should be equally compensated, whether or not the work content of those jobs is similar (Grider and Shurden, 1987). That is, if the positions of secretary and draftsman (historically viewed as female and male jobs, respectively) require similar skills and make comparable demands on employees, they should pay the same, regardless of external market factors. Specifically, comparable worth argues that jobs should be evaluated and scored on four criteria - skill, effort responsibility, and working conditions. The criteria should be weighted and given points, with the points then used to value and compare jobs. Comparable worth is a controversial idea. It assumes that totally dissimilar jobs can be accurately compared, that pay rates based on supply and demand factors in the job market are frequently inequitable and discriminatory, and that job classes can be identified and objectively rated. Comparable worth expands the notion of "equal pay for equal work" to include jobs that are dissimilar but of comparable value. As long as women in traditionally lower-paid, female-dominated jobs compare themselves solely to other women in female-dominated jobs, they are unlikely to perceive gender-based pay inequities. But when other referents are chosen, inequities 8 often become qu!ckly evident. This is because "women's" jobs have been historically devalued. To the degree that job classes reflect historical gender discrimination and create pay inequities, comparable worth provides a potential remedy. For women in these discriminated job classes, the application of the comparable worth concept should reduce inequities and increase work motivation. Women earn, on average about 70 cents for each dollar that men earn. Part of this difference can be explained in market terms. For instance, the average number of years of professional job preparation is 4.2 for males and 0.4 for females. Males also have, on average, 12.6 years of job seniority compared to only 2.4 for females( Patten, 1988). Yet even after objective differences are accounted for, a good portion of the variance remains. It is this variance that comparable worth is addressing. The literature exploring why women work is drenched in interesting assumptions about what constitute legitimate motivations. The evaluations represented amount to a powerful double-bind for the woman worker. Women are traditionally excluded from management jobs because they are generally judged less serious, less motivated than male employees. A typical comparative study of motivation at work is that of Brief and Oliver (1976). One hundred and five retail sales managers (of whom 53 were women) indicated their expectations of meet:ng sales targets and the importance to them of 25 job outcomes such as fringe benefits, working relationship, prestige, responsibility, job security and personal growth (The items were drawn from Vroom's model of motivation). Holding constant the potentially confounding variables of occupation and organization level, the authors found no significant pattern of male-female differences in work motivations. 9 The area of potential male-female difference which has most attention in relation to women managers is that of leadership or management style. Historically a..'1d schematically, theories of leadership have developed from taking a narrow view in which the personal characteristics of the leader are all-important (trait theories); to style theories which focus more on how the individual behaves and what priorities they read into the role; to more complex contingency or fit approaches which match various aspects of leader, leader behaviour, task, group and content and evaluate their compatibility and relevance for particular purposes. Women manager studies have favoured style theories as their conceptual base. Various research approaches ranging from laboratory studies of small groups to surveys in which managers and their subordinates are asked to rate the manager behaviour came to remarkably consistent conclusion: that women are very similar to men in their leadership style. Typical conclusion from studies or review articles are: 'In most cases, there are no differences or relatively minor differences between male and female leaders or leadership styles whether the leaders are being described by themselves or being described by the subordinates.' (Bartol, 1978). Some leadership studies do find ways in which women differ from men, but almost always within a total profile dominated by similarity and these differences could be interpreted as advantages. Muldrow and Bayton (1979), for example, found that women took fewer risks in decision-making but that their overall decision accuracy matched that of the men studied. 10 2.2 SEX-ROLE STEREOTYPES Sex-role stereotypes are essentially social creations. They are the meaning assigned to being biologically female or male. Much of the teachings we received during childhood socialization instructs us in sex role requirements (Sharpe, 1975). As gender is a more central foundation of identity than most (if not all) other characteristics, sex roles have a commensurately significant influence on who we are, how we behave, how others see us and how others behave towards us. The sex roles permeate all aspects of life and take precedence over other more situation-specific work or social roles if they are incompatible (Bayes and Newton, 1978). A substantial body of evidence has indicated that sex discrimination against women occurs in most stages of the employment process. For example, various studies have found that women are discriminated against with regard to recruitment and hiring decisions (Shaw, 1972; Dipboye, Fromkin and Wiback, 1975), salary offers (Terborg and Ilgen, 1975), performance evaluations (Friend, Kalin and Giles, 1979), promotion policies (Day and Stogdill, 1972), employee utilization (Rosen and Jerdee, 1974b) and employee development (Rosen and Jerdee, 1974a). Dipboye, Fromkin and Wiback (1975) in their study to examine the basis on which interviewers may discriminate among job candidates resumes in the screening evaluation phase of the selection process found that interviewers discriminated among applicants for a managerial position on the basis of scholastic standing, sex and physical attractiveness. In their study, 30 male college students and 30 male professional interviewers rated and rank bogus resumes on suitability for a managerial position. Applicants' sex, physical attractiveness and scholastic standing were systematically varied in the resumes. A 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 repeated measures analysis of variance on the 11 ratings yielded four significant main effects, while the same analysis on the rankings yielded three significant main effects. Students rated applicants more favourably than professionals. Both groups preferred males to females, attractive applicants to unattractive applicants and applicants of higher scholastic standing. The latter variable accounted for the greatest proportion of variance. However, internal analysis of the rankings revealed sex and physical attractiveness were more important than indicated by the analysis of variance. The training and experience of professional interviewers did not give them immunity from the tendency to discriminate on the basis of sex and physical attractiveness. One possible explanation for the preference for male candidates may be that the position of manager is stereotypically perceived as a masculine occupation which requires personal attributes which are more characteristic of the masculine than the feminine role (Schein, 1973). It is frequently alleged that male administrators view females as equipped to do the organizationd housekeeping but as deficient in the toughness, stability, judgement and deduction required for success in managerial and other traditionally male roles. To protect both the organization and the "vulnerable" female employee, male administrators allegedly resort to a pattern of exclusion in selection, promotion and development which bars women from the more challenging organizational roles or places them at a disadvantage when they do achieve these roles. Rosen and Jerdee (1974) used an in-basket exercise to investigate the influence of sex role stereotypes on the personnel decisions of 95 bank supervisors. The design consisted of four separate experiments (in-basket items) in which an employee's sex and other situational attributes were manipulated. Results confirmed the hypothesis that male administrators 12 tend to discriminate against female employees m personnel decisions involving promotion, development and supervision. In early 1970s, Schein demonstrated a relationship between sex role stereotyping and characteristics perceived as requisites for success as a manager. Two studies showed that both men (Schein, 1973) and women (Schein, 1975) who were middle managers perceived successful middle managers as possessing characteristics, attitudes and temperaments more commonly ascribed to men in general than to women in general. Such sex role stereotyping of managerial work can result in the perception that women are less qualified than men for management positions and negatively affect women's entry into such positions (Schein, 1978). In her study, Schein hypothesized that successful middle managers are perceived to possess those characteristics, attitudes and temperaments more commonly ascribed to men in general than to women in general. Her sample was composed of 300 middle line male managers of various departments within nine insurance companies located throughout the United States. They were asked to rate either women in general, men in general or successful middle managers on 92 descriptive terms. The results confirm the hypothesis that successful middle managers are perceived to possess those characteristics, attitudes and temperaments that are more commonly ascribed to men in general than to women in general. This association between sex role stereotypes and perceptions of requisite management characteristics seems to account in pari, for the limited number of women in management positions. The results suggest that, all else being equal, the perceived similarity between the characteristics of successful middle managers and men in general increases the likelihood of a male rather than a female being selected for or promoted to a managerial position. 13 One explanation for the differential treatment of women stems from the assumption that women lack the aggressiveness, leadership ability often required of management positions. Research studies support this contention (e.g. Megargee, 1969). Megargee investigated the relationship between sex roles, need for dominance and the assumption of leadership. Megargee formed four types of pairs based on sex and need for dominance: a) high dominance male, low dominance male, b) high dominance male, low dominance female, c)· high dominance female, low dominance male, and d) high dominance female, low dominance female. The pairs were introduced to a mechanical task in one study and a dictating task in a second study. Both tasks called for one member of the pair to assume a leadership position, and the decision as to who should be leader was left to each pair. Megargee hypothesized that high need for dominance women would not assume the leadership position when paired with low need for dominance males, eventhough the high need for dominance member of the pair would assume the leadership position under the other three conditions. Megargee's hypothesis was confirmed. He attributed the phenomenon to the social role prescriptions of women, noting that while it is acceptable for men to dominate women, the reverse is not true. An analysis of tape recordings of verbal interchanges between the pairs revealed that the high need for dominance female tended to make the decision that the male should be the leader. Thus the female appeared to have exerted her need for dominance but in subtle, less visible manner. Since the time of Schein's empirical research, both society in general and management in particular have undergone change. In 1972 women filled 19 percent of all 14 management positions in America whereas in 1986 women filled nearly 33 percent of these positions. However, women hold only 2 percent of senior management jobs in America's largest companies (Berlin. 1988). Business Week's list of the top 1,000 chief executives for 1988 included only four women, which is twice as many as in 1987. Despite gains, there is a dearth of women in senior executive positions. The fact suggested that the association between sex role stereotypes and characteristics people perceive as requisite for success as a manager may still be relatively strong and operative. A consensus of more than 800 American executives indicated that psychological barriers to women in management still remain (Small Business Report, 1979). One of the reservoir of openly expressed reluctance to employing women as managers is the claim that 'other people' do not want to work for, or deal with women at work. Harvard Business Review surveyed 2,000 subscribers (half of them men) in 1965 (Bowman et. al., 1965) on their attitudes towards women executives. More than two-thirds of the men and almost one-fifth of the women said they would feel uncomfortable working for a female boss. From a more recent study of 1,400 mde and female academic employees and university staff in a large mid-Western American university, Ferber et. al. (1979) derived a similar picture of preferences. Respondents were asked how they would react to women either as bosses, or in the six professional occupations of accountant, dentist, lawyer, physician, estate agent and veterinarian. Sixty-four percent of the males and fifty-one percent of the females prefer male in at least one occupation. Seventeen percent of the males and thirty percent of the females prefer female in at least one occupation. 15 These research findings, by and large suggest that women were not their own 'worst enemies' - men were, by a small margin. This survey does, however, suggest that attitudes towards female bosses or professionals are changing. Greater acceptance was associated with exposure to women in these roles, with higher education (for men) and with being married to working women. It is concluded that Affirmative Action legislation will have a significant impact simply by increasing the number of women in management positions. 16 Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODS This chapter describes the methodology of data collection, sample and procedure used in collecting the data. 3.1 MEASURES Data was collected through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three parts: statements measuring attitudes towards wc:nen as managers, rank ordering ten job related factors that contribute to the grm¥1:h and success of women as managers and some demographic items. 3.l.l.Attitudes Towards Women as Managers Attitude towards women as managers was measured by using a scale developed by Peters, Terborg and Taynor (1974). The Women as Managers Scale (WAMS) was designed to identify and measure stereotypic attitudes towards women as managers. The questimmaire consisted of21 items to include: i) general descriptive traits/behaviour of managers (e.g. leadership) and ii) female-specific stereotypic traits/behaviours thought to represent barriers to the successful integration ofwomen into managerial positions (e.g. child-rearing responsibilities). Each item consisted of a declarative statement for which there were SIX response alternatives ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Eleven items were worded to favourably describe women as managers and ten items worded unfavourably. 17 The respondents were asked to read the statements carefully and then indicate their agreement or disagreement with each of the statements using the following six point scale. Strongly agree 6 Agree 5 Agree a little 4 Disagree a little 3 Disagree 2 Strongly disagree 1 The draft questionnaire was provided to a group of Malaysian male and female workers to get their opinion on the contents and relevance of items for Malaysian sample. By and large, they agreed on the general presentation and scope of the questionnaire. However, a few suggestions were made to change the wordings of the items. These changes were made before finalizing the questionnaire. 3.1.2.Job Related Factors Ten job related factors contributing to growth and success in organizations were selected to be measured on their significance affecting the growth opportunities of women as managers. These factors were identified based on the review of literature and the comments of a group of employees. The factors concern the work behaviour and are contextual to the organizational settings. The respondents were asked to rank order these factors in terms of their significance to the growth and success of women as managers. Rank 1 is given to the most important, 2 to the next most important and 10 to the least important. These ten factors are as listed below: 18 1. Coordinating ability 2. Decision making ability 3. Efficiency 4. Hard work 5. Interpersonal relationship 6. Leadership 7. Meeting deadlines 8. Merit 9. Planning ability 10. Professional qualifications 3.1.3.Demographic Profile The questionnaire also sought information about the respondents' marital status, gender, age, years of formal education and years of work experience. In addition, information was sought on the nature of responsibility and sector affiliation. The final questionnaire consisted of both English and Bahasa Malaysia versions and the respondents had the choice of version. To ensure that all translation still retain its original meaning, a few persons well versed in both Bahasa Malaysia and English Language were requested to translate the English version to Bahasa Malaysia and was re-translated back to English by another group of people. The process was repeated until the Bahasa Malaysia version carried the intended meaning. The final questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 1. 3.2 SAMPLES The final questionnaire was distributed to 190 employees working in 12 organizations representing both service and manufacturing sectors (See Appendix 2). The number of questionnaires sent/received by sector and the percentage of return are presented in Table 3 .1. The data suggested that the percentage of return was higher from the service sector(76.6%) as compared to the manufacturing sector(64.0%). Of the 190 questionnaires, 133 were completed and received. 19 Table 3.1 Return Rate of Questionnaires Sector Questionnaires Questionnaires Retum Rate ~·ol Sent Returned Service 90 69 Manufacturing 100 64 7R64 Total 190 133 I 70 I I - I 3.3 DATA COLLECTION The data were collected through the help of friendly intermediaries in manufacturing and service sectors. People known to the researcher who were holding responsible positions in the selected organizations were approached. They were explained the purpose and scope of the study. Once they agreed to co-operate, they were requested to have the questionnaires completed by their colleagues and friends in their organizations. All respondents were assured of the confidentiality of the data provided. 20 Chapter 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY This chapter presents the sample profile and results of the study. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that affect the growth opportunities of women as managers and the attitude of respondents towards them. The specific factors were divided into two categories - biographic (age, gender, marital status, years of education and experience) and organizational (the gender of supervisor, sector affiliation and job responsibility). The attitude was measured by a 21 item attitude towards women as manager's scale. In addition 10 organizationally relevant factors were also used to seek the ranking of them by the respondents in terms of their significance to the growth and success of women as managers. 4.1 SAMPLE PROFILE Table 4.1 presents the profile of sample (N=133). The results in Table 4.1 indicate that the average age of the sample is 33.1 years and the average years of formal education is 14. In terms of years of work experience, the average number of years is 10.5. The results also indicate an almost equal distribution of the sample in terms of gender, marital status and sector. Ofthe 133 respondents, 65 or 48.9% are male while 51.1% are female. On the other hand, 51.1% of the respondents are married and the remaining 48.9% single. Of the 133 respondents, 51.9% are in the service sector with the balance 48.1% in the manufacturing sector. Majority of the 133 respondents is in the staff job responsibility, with 83.5% in staff function compared to 16.5% in line function. In terms of gender of supervisor, 86 or 64.7% of the respondents worked under male supervisors while 47 or 35.3% worked under female supervisors. 21 Table 4.1 Sample Profile Factors Age N 133 M 33.1 SD 6.6 Education N 133 M 14 SD 2.4 Work Ex12erience N 133 M 10.5 SD 7 Gender Male 65 (48.9%) Female 68 (51.1%) Marital Status Married 68 (51.1%) Single 65 (48.9%) Sector Service 69 (51.9%) Manufacturing 64 (48.1%) Job Status Staff Ill (83.5%) Line 22 (16.5%) Sunervisor Gender Male 86 (64.7%) Female 47 (35.3%) N =Number of Cases; M = Average; SD = Standard Deviation Estimate 4.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN AS MANAGERS Attitudes towards women as managers were measured by a 21 item questionnaire. Since some items were negatively worded responses on them were reversed to get a single direction response in all items. In order to see if a single score can be developed these 21 items were intercorrelated. The values of coefficients are given in Appendix 3. The results in Appendix 3 suggest that item 14 does not seem to belong to a large number of items and hence it was dropped from the final analysis. The scores for the remaining 20 items were added to get a single score which ranged from 20 to 120. 22 The overall results show an average score of 92.13 on the attitude towards women as managers, reflecting a relatively positive overall attitude. The value of standard deviation estimate is 13 .64 suggesting an almost one seventh deviation from the average. The specific mean and standard deviation estimates by biographic and organizational factors are presented in Table 4.2. On factors with continuous score ( age, years of education and work experience) the average on the total sample was used to get two classes of respondents - those above and those below the averages. Given the t-values in Table 4.2, the results indicate that neither the biographic factors nor organizational factors affect the attitude towards women as managers. All the t-values are insignificant. In other words, as far as attitude towards women as managers is concerned biographic factors, such as age, marital status, gender, years of education and experience make no difference. By the same token, the organizational variables fail to show significant differences in the attitude towards women as managers. Subsequent analysis was done by dividing the immediate supervisors of the sample by gender and studying the attitude towards women as managers of the total sample. Table 4.3 presents the means and standard deviation estimates of the four possible categories. To see if differences in the averages in the four cells of Table 4.3 vary significantly, a two-way analysis of variance with unequal number of cases in each cell was conducted (Winer, 1962). The results are presented in Table 4.4. The results of analysis of variance suggest that the differences in the gender of respondents make a significant difference in the attitude towards women as managers (F= 30.62; df= 11129; P < .01). Female respondents irrespective of the gender of supervisor have significantly higher score on attitude towards women as managers than male respondents (see Table 4.3). 23 To be able to examine the contribution of 8 variables on the attitude towards women as managers, stepwise regression was calculated. The results are presented in Appendix 4. The results indicate that all variables (as given in Table 4.2) taken together explain 24.2% of the variation in attitude towards women as managers. Gender of the respondent contributes maximally (16.0%) of the total variation. The rest of the variables do not make any significant contribution. Table 4.2 Means and Standard Deviation Estimates on Attitudes Towards Women as Managers Factors N M SD t value Age <=33 74 93.1 14.39 0.03 > 34 59 90.9 12.54 Marital Status Single 65 94 10.49 0.23 Married 68 90.3 12.51 Gender Female 68 98 10.67 0.75 Male 65 85.9 13.66 Education < = 14 years 58 91.6 12.34 0.06 > 14 years 75 92.5 14.56 Work Ex12erience < = 10 years 66 92.9 13 0.09 > 10 years 67 91.4 13.21 Sector Manaufacturing 64 91.3 13.49 0.09 Service 69 92.9 13.74 Function Line 22 87 13.73 0.3 Staff 111 93.2 13.39 SuQervisor Gender Male 86 92.1 14.64 0.01 Female 47 92.3 11.77 N= Number of cases; M =Average; SD =Standard Deviation Estimate 24 Table 4.3 Means and Standard Deviation Estimates Respondents Male Female Supervisors Male N =45 N =41 M = 86.60 M = 98.05 SD = 14.63 SD = 11.88 Female N =20 N =27 M = 84.45 M = 98.07 SD = 11.02 SD = 8.50 N =Number of Cases; M =Average; SD = Standard Deviation Estimate Table 4.4 Analysis of Variance Source ss df MS F A. Gender 33.88 1 33.82 0.22 (Supervisor) B. Gender 4,702.74 1 4,702.74 30.62** (Respondents) AXB 35.32 1 35.32 0.23 Within cell 19,811.5 129 153.58 ** p < .01 25 Table 4.5 Factors affecting attitude towards women as managers on 8 variables +------+------+------· +------+------+------· +------· +------+------· +------+ Factors Overall Age Gender Marital Status Education Work Exp Super Gender Function Sector rank +------· +------· +------· +------+------+------+------· +------· +------· +------· +------· +------+------· +------· +------· +------<=33 > 34 Male Female Married Single <=14 >14 <=10 >10 Male Female Line Staff Mfg Service N=108 N=59 N=49 N=53 N=55 N=50 N=58 N=44 N=64 N=58 N=50 N=73 N=35 N=20 N=88 N=59 N=49 ------~------+------+------· +------· +------· +------+------+------+------· +------· +------· +------· +------· +------+------· +------· +-----~---· +------1 Coordinating Ability 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 5 6 5 6.5 6 6 5.5 2 Decision Making 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Efficiency 4 3.5 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3.5 5 3 4 Hard Work 8 8 7.5 8 8 8 8.5 8 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 9 8 5 Interpersonal Relation 5 3.5 6 4.5 5 5 5 5.5 5 4.5 6.5 4.5 6 5 5 4 5.5 p Leadership 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 Meeting Deadlines 9 9 9 7 9 9 8.5 9 7.5 8 9 9 9 8 9 8 9 8 Merit 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 Planning Ability 3 5 3 4.5 3 3 4 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4 3.5 3 4 10 Professional Qualification 7 7 7.5 9 7 7 7 5.5 7.5 7 6.5 7 7 6.5 7 7 7 ------+------+------· +------· +------· +------+------+------+------· +------· +------· +------· +------· +------+------· +------· +------· +------Rho= 0.93** 0.93** 0.98** 0.94** 0.94** 0.96** 0.98** 0.93** +------+------+------· +------+------+------· +------· +------+------· +------+ N = Number of Cases * p < .05 ** p < .01 26 4.3 FACTORS AFFECTING GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN The respondents were asked to rank order 10 job related factors in terms of their significance to the growth and success of women as managers. The ranking of these 10 factors by biographic (N=5) and organizational (N=3) variables and the values of rank-order coefficients are given in Table 4.5 along with the overall rank. Since not all the respondents completed this part of the questionnaire, the sample size is reduced. Of the 133 respondents, 25 did not complete this part. Hence, the analysis in this section is based on the data provided by 108 respondents. The results in Table 4.5 suggest that for the total sample, leadership and decision making are the most significant and meeting deadlines and merit are the least significant factors contributing to the growth and success of women as managers. As far as the rankings of 10 factors by biographic and organizational variables are concerned, the bottom line of Table 4.5 presents the values of rank order coefficients. All the values of coefficients are significant beyond the conventional level of significance. In other words, neither the differences in biographic variables nor organizational variables differentiate the ranking of the factors contributing to the growth and success of women as managers. By and large, leadership· and decision making are rated as the topmost factors contributing to the success and growth of women as managers. On the other hand, meeting deadlines and merit, by and large, are found to be the least important in the success and growth of women as managers. These seem to be consistent with the overall rankings. 27 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION This chapter explains the major findings of this study and highlights their implications. It also suggests measures that should be considered in any future research attempt in this area. This study was conducted to examine the factors that affect the growth opportunities of women as managers and the attitude of respondents towards them. 5.1 ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN AS MANAGERS The t-test result suggests that neither the biographic factors of age, gender, marital status, years of education and experience nor organizational factors of gender of supervisor, sector affiliation and job responsibility affect the attitude towards women as managers. Subsequent two-way analysis done by dividing the immediate supervisors of the sample by gender and studying the attitude towards women as managers of the sample indicate that female respondents have significantly favourable attitude towards women as managers. Further analysis of regressing attitudes on the biographic and organizational variables suggest that gender of the respondents contribute maximally towards predicting attitudes towards women as managers. As may be seen from the preceding literature review, a large volume of research on women in management have focussed on global stereotypes of the "typical women". People are hypothesized to possess stereotypes of women and these stereotypes guide their perception, evaluation and treatment of women. Little, however, is known about the correlation of personal data and organizational data such as gender, age, education, 28 interaction with women etc. with attitudes towards women as managers apart from work done by Terborg, Peters, Ilgen and Smith (1977). In their study to examine the relationship of personal data and organizational data to stereotypes among 180 male and I 00 female employees, the results indicate that women with formal education tend to have the most favourable attitudes towards women as managers. Age and marital status, however, do not contribute appreciably towards predicting attitudes. When organizational data are used as predictors, they do not consistently relate to attitude towards women as managers. The results of the current study seems to be in agreement with that of Terborg, Peters, Ilgen and Smith (1977). When one compares the blatant bias against women that was prevalent in past years with what it has been during the past two decades, there is little doubt that the status of women in management has improved dramatically. Our society is experiencing a period of significant change in the concept of women's role. This change is reflected in the increasing numbers of women who are planning their lives around careers in the work world. Research has shown that people do not appear to have as strong a conception of women in general or men in general in the 1980s as they did when first sex stereotype studies were conducted in the 1950s (Ashmore 1981 ). There is also increasing evidence that people are less likely to think in terms of global categories of men and women than they are of subcategories. In a recent study, Noseworthy and Lott (1984) had subjects name as many different types of women as they could think of and found five fairly distinct stereotypes: housewife, career woman, sex object, athlete and "libber". They found that whereas the stereotypes of the career woman and the athlete were quite different from the stereotype ofwomen in general, the stereotypes of housewife and sex object were quite similar to the traditional female 29 stereotypes. Ashmore (1981) found evidence that students subtype both men and women. In describing women, they appeared to use such subcategories as the girlfriend, the neurotic, the nurturing woman, the submissive women, the wallflower and the upper-class young women. In describing men, students used such subcategories as the tough· guy, the egotist, the student body president and the male chauvinist. These subcategories appear to influence perceptions and evaluations more than the general categories of "all men" or "all women". The increasing labour force participation of women is perhaps the most important market development of the century. Women are no longer peripheral but integral parts of the workforce. Most women spend more time working than they do bearing children and male and female expectations about self-realization from jobs and careers are convergmg. It is reasonable to assume that with the increased number of working women, the experience of those working with them and the increased interaction with them will lead to a less stereotypic behaviour. Megargee (1969) in his study on the relationship between sex role on the manifestation of leadership found that there was a slight reduction of the differential stereotypical perceptions of men and women among older managers. Certain concomitants of age such as years of working experience may reduce the perceptual 'male typing' of the managerial work. For example, experienced employees probably have had more exposure to women as managers, thereby modifying some of their stereotypical perceptions of women. Perhaps more influential to their perceptions may be the changing roles of the wives and female social peers of these older employees. 30 This age related interpretation implies that as more women become active participants in the labour force, the increased experience with working women will reduce to some extent the negative attitude towards women as managers. Consequently, this psychological barrier to women in management will be lowered, thereby affording greater opportunity for women to enter into and advance in managerial positions. In a recent research study, Spence and Helmreich (1972) showed that female college students and their mothers possessed more liberal attitude towards the role of women in society than male college students and their fathers respectively. Based on their findings it was predicted that females would have more favourable attitudes towards women as managers than would males. Thought-test results ofthe current study show no significance for gender on attitude towards women as managers, nevertheless, the results of stepwise regression suggest that gender of respondents contribute maximally to the variation in attitudes. Results of subsequent analysis of variance also suggest that female respondents have significantly higher score on attitude towards women as managers. Major differences between the female and male segments of the workforce can be seen in terms of the industries in which they work. According to Sommers ( 197 4) half of all working women can be found in just twenty-one occupations, while over a quarter of them have one of only five occupations (secretary, retail sales, household worker, bookkeeper, elementary school teacher). In contrast, the Bureau of Labour Statistics reports that only a seventh of male workers are concentrated in the largest five occupations and half are spread among 65 of 423 possible male occupations. 31 On the whole, women are more likely to be found in service industries than are men and are less likely to be found in mining and construction or in manufacturing than are men. Similarly, women are more likely to be found in staff functions than line function. It is obvious that women worked in occupations that were a reflection of the jobs they had done previously in the family economy. Even in the "newer" occupations, women were required to perform their 'preindustrial familiar tasks of nurturing and mothering'. This suggest that employees in service sector and staff function would have a higher degree of interaction with women and would thus have a more favourable attitude towards women as managers than would employees in the manufacturing sector. The inconsistency of the findings of current study to the prediction could be a result of a changed view of women. It could also be argued that the particular type of sample involved in the research may account for the lack of disparity noted. The average years of education of the sample is 14 with standard deviation of 2.4 indicating that most of the employees have a fairly high level of education and would have completed their pre-university studies. These people would have in their school days competed on equal terms with their female schoolmates and when they enter the labour force the working environment is no different. They are thus more likely to accept their female colleagues and peers as their equal. Similarly, the average years of work experience of the sample is 10 with standard deviation of 7 indicating that most of the employees would have fairly long tenure in organizations and a high chance of interaction with women employees, either as their subordinates or their superiors. The function of education and work experience could negate the factors that would contribute to an unfavourable attitude towards women as managers. The fact that 32 83.5% of the subjects in this study were in staff functions also may have influenced the nature of the results obtained. Further, of the twelve organizations that data were collected from, seven were multinational companies and balance five were large local corporations. In such organizations the likelihood of having women in managerial positions would be higher. As employees of these organizations have a greater chance of interaction with women as their colleagues or peers they tend to have a more favourable attitude towards women as managers. 5.2 FACTORS AFFECTING GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN The results of rank order coefficients show that leadership and decision making are the most significant factors contributing towards the growth of women as managers. Decision making is a basic process in organizational behaviour. Individuals or groups of individuals with a set of skills, knowledge, experiences and values make decisions in organization. Obviously, the skills, knowledge and experiences correlate with the type and amount of expertise an individual or group brings to decision making. The personal value systems of individuals influence the decision making process and outcomes by affecting perceptions of situations, problems, individuals and organizational success, the choice process, interpersonal relations involved in decision making, limits of ethical behaviour and acceptance of organizational goals (England, 1967). Environmental and organizational changes have contributed to the importance of adequate leadership. Historically, research first linked effective leadership to traits of individuals (Randle, 1956). Next leadership was associated with two types of behaviour: initiating structure (production orientation) and consideration (employee orientation) (Stogdill and Coons, 1957; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950). Then situational approaches to leadership, which report that the nature of affective leadership 33 depends on particular features of the situation such as leader-member selections, the structure of the situation, the needs of subordinates and the readiness of followers predominated (Fiedler, 1964). Today, the situation approach remains viable, although other models, including exchange theory, attributional theory, substitutes for leadership, superleadership complement it. In addition, the call for the transformational leader remains loud. Women managers who have broken the glass ceiling in medium-sized, nontraditional organizations have proven that effective leaders do not come from one mould. They have demonstrated that using the command-and-control style of managing others, a style generally associated with men in large, traditional organizations, is not the only way to succeed. The first female executives, because they were breaking new ground, adhered to many ofthe "rules of conduct" that spelled success for men. Now a second wave ofwomen is making its way into top management, not by adopting the style and habits that have proved successful for men but by drawing on the skills and attitudes they developed from their shared experience as women. These second-generation managerial women are drawing on what is unique to their socialization as women and creating a different path to the top. They are seeking and finding opportunities in fastchanging and growing organizations to show that they can achieve results in a different way. They are succeeding because of-not in spite of-certain characteristics generally considered to be "feminine" and inappropriate in leaders. The results of this study indicate that merit is by and large rated as the least important factor in the success and growth of women as managers. This may sound paradoxical. Perhaps the respondents found merit as a very broad based construct, not knowing the 34 specific meaning, they rank it as the bottom most. However, when broken down in terms of specific components ( e.g.leadership and decision making) seem to make more specific sense and hence are given their due recognition. A number of factors have contributed to women's increased labour force participation, including teclmological changes that gave women more control over the number of children they might have, their increased life expectancy, the mechanization of household work and an increased number of jobs considered "suitable", by rising living standards and changing social attitudes about "women's work" and the place of women in society. Other factors contributing to the improvement of women's employment position were their rising educational levels, tight labour markets, civil rights movement which focussed public attention on employment discrimination against women. 5.3 IMPLICATIONS Women in general face barriers m penetrating the upper levels of management. Nevertheless, their number in the management arena in the 1990s has been increasing. In the past women have not reached the top because there is no real need to put them there. Despite all the proclamations about the increasing diversity of the workforce, corporate offices have still plenty of male candidates to fill the upper ranks. The idea of promoting women had been more of a social issue than an economic necessity. This is slowly changing. While women have been packing the corporate base for years it is only now that their presence is reaching critical mass. While they still cluster in staff positions, a growing number of women are in line jobs. The number of qualified women will soon be so great that ignoring them will not only be discrimination but bad business. Corporate leaders can no longer afford to ignore half of the population when they are seeking executive talent. This should be encouraging for the female 35 management students and those female employees aspiring to take on managerial roles. As more women advance successfully in positions of authority and power they would become role models for those who possess the potential for being successful managers. Government legislation and public pressure have resulted in greater number of women in management positions but a proactive effort on the part of businesses is required to effectively incorporate women managers into the corporate structure. The attitude of company workers to a large extent determine the climate of the organization. Negative attitudes towards women managers obviously are not conducive to a productive working environment. If organizations are to maintain efficiency in their operations it is important that they actively respond to situations created by the presence of women in their managerial ranks. The process of assessing strategies for integrating women is more critical when one realizes the costs to the organizations of continuing a haphazard, reactive approach. Some of the costs may be alienation, low job satisfaction, poor decision making and high turnover. Corporate-level costs include missed opportunities, unused resources and poorly trained personnel. Organizations will find it less costly to develop a programme that meet the actual needs of women entering management ranks than to devote resources to programmes that are irrelevant at best. From an economic standpoint alone, the female labour force contributes an important reservoir of ability that companies must employ to remain competitive in the business world. Firms wishing to attract and hire well-qualified women managers and utilized them to their fullest must pay close attention to what organizational progress serve to encourage and facilitate the entry and advancement of women in management. 36 Many of the remedial approaches have clarity as their theme. Companies are advised to develop clear job descriptions, clear selection criteria, clear role definitions, clear appraisal standards. In practical terms 'clarity' might also mean publicly advertising job vacancies within a company so that all employees have equal chances of applying, or examining in-company and public relations documentation to purge any overt or implicit sexism (Venables, 1981 ). If job requirements and skills are measured objectively, it is claimed, confusion, conflict, competition and therefore discrimination will be eliminated. Objectivity affords a way of being fair. In Schein's terms we should move from 'Think Manager - Think Male', to 'Think Manager - Think Qualified Person'. 5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY One of the limitations of the study is the size of the sample as compared to the total population that is the total working employees in the state of Penang. Size of the sample is small due to time and economic constraints. A study of large samples perhaps may show different results. Of the 12 participating organizations 7 are multi-national corporations while the rest are large local companies. In large corporations, there is a higher tendency for women to be more well represented, especially in the staff function. This may be the reason for the high average score of 92.13 out of a maximum score of 120 on the attitude towards women as managers. The results showed no significant differences by biographic and organizational factors on the attitude towards women as managers. Perhaps, the questionnaires were not fully tapping the private opinions of the respondents. A more in-depth study could possibly be conducted to get the respondents to express their personal opinions more openly. 37 5.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The study shows that biographic factors other than gender and organizational factors do not affect the attitude towards women as managers. It suggests the possibilities of future research concentrating to test the following specific hypotheses: 1. Female have more favourable attitude towards women as managers than male. 2. Age, marital status, education and work experience do not affect the attitude towards women as managers. 3. Organizational factors such as sector affiliation, job responsibility and gender of supervisor do not affect the attitude towards women as managers. 4. Leadership and decision making ability are major factors that affect growth opportunities of women as managers. The results presented in this study deal only with certain organizational and personal correlates of attitudes towards women as managers. Most researches on women in management that have been conducted in the past have focussed primarily at the individual level of analysis and have left untouched questions at the intergroup, interpersonal and structural levels. As important as stereotypes there are also emotional, social and behavioural factors that can account for discrimination against women in management that have been ignored in past research. The power of women managers can be eroded by irrational fears and anxieties of being led by a woman as well as by the sexual feelings that invariably enter into male and female relation. Habitual and often mindless patterns of behaviour that men and women exhibit in interacting with each other are potential deterrents for women. For example, there is seldom a conscious intent behind the subtle verbal and non verbal ways in which men dominate and women submit in the course of conversing with each other. This 38 communication styles still can have the effect of eroding the power and influence of women. The behaviour and attitudes of organization members are shaped to a large extent by the social roles they occupy. These roles, in tum are defined by the expectations that persons inside and outside the organization communicate to them regarding what is appropriate and what is inappropriate conduct. For example, women may be held back in promotion decisions not so much because of the individual stereotypes of her superior or the traits and behaviour of the ;vomen, but because the culture of the organization communicates both overtly and covertly that men and not women should be on the fast track. Future research could perhaps concentrate on the affective social and behavioural factors that affect attitudes towards women as managers. 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashmore, R.D. (1981). Sex stereotype and implicit personality theory. In Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour, ed. D.L. Hamilton. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 37-82. Bartol, K.M. (1978). The sex structuring of organizations: a search for possible causes. Academy of Management Review. Bayes, M., and Newton, P.M. (1978). Women in authority: a socio-psychological analysis, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 14, 1. Berlin, R.K. (1988). Women beat the corporate game, Fortune, September 12, 128-138. Bowman, G.W., Worthy, N.B., and Greyson, S.A. (1965). Problems in review: Are women executive people?. Harvard Business Review, 43, 52-67. Brief, A.P., and Oliver, R.L. (1976). Male-female differences in work attitudes among retail sales managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 4. Day, D.R., and Stogdill, R.M. (1972). Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology, 25, 353-360. Dipboye, R.L., Fromkin, H.L., and Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39-45. England, G.W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academv of Management Journal. Ferber, F., Huber, J., and Spitze, G. (1979). Preferences for men as bosses and professionals. Social forces, 58, 2. Fiedler, F .E. (1964 ). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press. Friend, P., Kalin, R., & Giles, H. (1979). Sex bias in the evaluation of journal articles: Sexism in England. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 77-78. Grider, D., and Shurden. (1987). The gathering storm of comparable worth. Business Horizons, 81-86. Katz, D., Maccoby, N. and Morse, N.C. (1950). Productivity, supervision and morale in an office situation, Ann Arbor. Survey Research Center. Kirk, W.Q., and Maddox, R.C. (1988). International management: The new frontier for women. Personnel, 46-49. 40 Luthans, F. (1992). Organizational Behaviour, New _York: McGraw Hill, Pp 108. Megargee, Edwin I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestatiun of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 377-382. Muldrow, T.W., and Bayton, J.A. (1979). Men and women executives and processes related to decision accuracy. Journal of Applied Psvchology, 64. Noseworthy, C.M., and Lott, A.J. (1984). The cognitive organization of gender - Stereotypic categories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 4 7 4-481. Patten, T.J. (1988). Fair Play, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Pp 31. Peters, L.H., Terborg, J.R., and Taynor, J. (1974). Women as Managers Scales (W AMS): A measure of attitudes towards women in management positions. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Ms. No. 585. Randle, C.W. (1956). How to identify promotable executives. Harvard Business Review, 34(3), 126. Rosen, B., and Jerdee, T.H. (1974a). Influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 9-14. Rosen, B., and Jerdee, T.H. (1974b). Effects of applicant's sex and difficulty of job on evaluations of candidates for managerial positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 511-512. Schein, V .E. (1973 ). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100. Schein, V.E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psvchology, 60, 340-344. Schein, V .E. (1978). Sex role stereotyping, ability and performance: Prior research and new directions. Personnel Psychology, 31, 259-268. Sharpe, S. (1975). Just Like a Girl, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Shaw, E.A. (1972). Differential impact of negative stereotyping in employee selection. Personnel Psvchoillgy, 25, 333-338. Small Business Report. (1979). Women- The Untapped Source, 4(12), 24-27. Sommers, D. (1974). Occupational rankings for men and women by earnings. Monthly Labour Review, 97(8), 34-51. Spence, J.R., and Helmreich, R. (1972). The attitudes toward women scale: An objective instrument to measure attitude towards the rights and roles of women in 41 contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychologv, Ms. No. 153. Stogdill, R.M., and Coons, A.F. (1957). Leader Behaviour: Its Description and Measurement Research Monograph No. 88, Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University. Terborg, J.R., and Ilgen, D.R. (1975). A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, 352-376. Terborg, J.R., Peters, L.H., Ilgen, D.R., and Smith, F. (1977). Organizational and personal correlates of attitudes toward women as managers. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 89-100. Venables, D. (1981). Paid work and the status of women. Business Graduate, XI (1). Winer, J.B. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York:McGraw Hill, Pp 241-244. Women in management. Malaysian Business (1989), June, 5-19. 42 Appendices Appendix 1 QUESTIONNAIRE This study is conducted as part of the academic programme leading to the MBA degree. The following items are an attempt to assess the attitudes people have about women as managers. The best answer to each statement is your personal opinion. The statements cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others and perhaps uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement; you can be sure that many people feel the same way you do. Perkara-perkara berikut adalah satu usaha untuk menilai sikap manusia terhadap kaum wan ita sebagai pengurus. Jawapan paling tepat kepada setiap penyataan adalah pendapat peribadian anda. Pernyataan-pernyataan itu meliputi pelbagai-pelbagai sudut pandangan yang bertentangan. Anda mungkin mendapati anda amat setuju dengan setengah-setengah pernyataan tetapi amat tidak setuju dengan yang lain mahupun kurang pasti dengan pernyataan-pernyataan tertentu. Sarna ada anda setuju dengon mana-mana pernyataan, anda boleh yakin ramai orang berpendapat sedemikian. Lim Kim Suan MBA Student School of Management Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 Penang 43 Please read each statement carefully and then show your agreement/disagreement using the following scale. Thank you. Sila baca setiap pernyataan dengan teliti, kemudian tunjukkan sejauh mana anda bersetuju atau tidak dengan menggunakan skel tersebut. Terima kasih. 1 - Strongly Disagree 4- Agree a little Amat Tidak Setuju Setuju Sedikit 2 - Disagree 5- Agree Tidak Setuju Setuju 3- Disagree a little 6 - Strongly Agree Tidak Setuju Sedikit Amat Setuju ___ 1. It is less desirable for women than men to have a job that requires responsibility. Adalah kurang berhasrat untuk kaum wanita memiliki pekerjaan yang melibatkan tanggungjawab berbanding dengan kaum lelaki. ---2. Women have the objectivity required to evaluate business situations properly. Kaum wanita mempunyai objektiviti yang diperlukan untuk menilai situasi-situasi perniagan dengan sempurna. ___ 3. Challenging work is more important to men than it is to women. Pekerjaan yang mencabar adalah lebih penting kepada kaum lelaki daripada kaum wanita. ___ 4. Men and women should be given equal opportunity for participation in management training programmes. Kaum lelaki dan wanita harus diberi peluang yang sama dalam penglibatan program latihan pengurusan. ___ 5. Women have the capability to acquire the necessary skills to be successful managers. Wanita mempunyai kecekapan dalam memperolehi kemahiran untuk menjadi pengurus yang berjaya. ---6. On the average, women managers are less capable of contributing to an organization's overall goals than are men. Secara purata, sumbangan pengurus wanita ke arah pencapaian matlamat keseluruhan organisasi adalah kurang berbanding dengan kaum lelaki. 44 ___ 7. It is not acceptable for women to assume leadership roles as often as men. Kaum wanita tidak diterima dalam peranan berkemimpin sekerap kaum lelaki. ___ 8. The business community should someday accept women in key managerial positions. Komuniti perniagaan harus menerima kaum wanita dalam jawat an pengurusan tinggi pada suatu masa kelak. ___ 9. Society should regard work by female managers as valuable as work by male managers. Masyarakat harus menganggap kerja seorang pengurus wanita sesama penting kerja pengurus lelaki. ___1 0. It is acceptable for women to compete with men for top executive positions. Kaum wanita adalah diterima dalam persaingan dengan kaum lelaki untuk mere but jawatan-jawatan tinggi eksekutif. ___11. The possibility of pregnancy does not make women less desirable employees than men. Kemungkinan mengandung tidak mengurangkan/menjejaskan minat terhadap kaum wanita sebagai perkerja berbanding dengan kaum lelaki. ---12. Women would no more allow their emotions to influence their managerial behavior than would men. Seperti kaum lelaki kaum wanita tidak membenarkan emosi mempengaruhi sikap pengurusan mereka. ---13. Problems associated with menstruation should not make women less desirable than men as employees. Masaalahberkaitan dengan haid tidak patut mengurangkanl menjejaskan minat terhadap kaum wanita sebagai pekerja her banding dengan kaum lelaki. ---14. To be a successful executive, a woman does not have to sacrifice some ofher feminity. Untuk menjadi eksekutifyang berjaya wanita tidak perlu mengorbankan sebahagian daripada sifat-sifat kewanitaannya. ___15. On the average, a woman who stays at home all the time with her children is a better mother than a woman who works outside the home at least half the time. Secara purata, wan ita yang berada di rumah bersama anak-anaknya sepenuh masa adalah ibu yang lebih baik berbanding dengan wanita yang bekerja di luar separuh masa. 45 ___16. Women are less capable of learning mathematical and mechanical skills than are men. - Wanita kurang cekap dalam mempelajari kemahiran matemaiik and mekanikal berbanding dengan kaum lelaki. ___17. Women are not ambitious enough to be successful in the business world. Wanita tidak cukup tinggi cita-citanya untuk berjaya dalam dunia perniagaan. ---18. Women cannot be assertive in business situations that demand it. Wanita tidak bersifat tegas dalam situasi-situasi perniagaan yang memerlukan ketegasan. ___19. Women possess the self-confidence required of a good leader. Sifat keyakinan diri yang diperlukan untuk menjadi pemimpin yang berkesan dimiliki kaum wanita. ___20. Women are not competitive enough to be successful in the business world. Wanita tidak bersaing dengan cukup kuat untuk berjaya dalam bidang perniagaan. ___21. Women cannot be aggressive in business situations that demand it. Wanita tidak bersikap agresif dalam situasi-situasi perniagaan yang memerlukan sikap itu. Given below are 10 job related factors. Please rank order them in terms of their significance to the growth and success of women as managers. Give rank 1 to the most important, 2 to the next most important and 10 to the least important. Berikut adalah 10 faktor berkaitan dengan perkerjaan. Sila susun faktor-faktor zm mengikut darjah kepentingannya terhadap perkembangan dan keiayaan kaum wanita sebagai pengurus. Sila beri nilai angka 1 kepada faktor yang terpenting, 2 kepada faktor yang kedua penting, and 10 kepada faktor yang paling kurang penting. Rank Darjah kepentingan 1. Coordinating ability Keupayaan menyelaras 2. Decision making ability Keupayaan membuat keputusan 3. Efficiency Kecekapan 46 4. Hard Work Kerajinan 5. Interpersonal relationship Perhubungan inter-personal 6. Leadership Kepimpinan 7. Meeting deadlines lvfenyiapkan kerja dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan 8. Merit Merit 9. Planning ability Keupayaan merancang 10. Professional qualifications Kelayakan professional 47 Personal Profile Butir-hutir Peribadi 1. Age: Umur: ---- 2. Sex: Male Female Jantina: Lelaki Perempuan __ 3. Marital Status:Married Single Kahwin--- Bujang__ _ 4. Years ofFormal Education: Jumlah Tahun Persekolahan: ------ 5. Years of Working Experience: Jumlah Tahun Pengalaman Pekerjaan: ______ 6. Job Position Held: Jawatan Pekerjaan: ______ 7. My Organisation is in the: Organisasi saya dalam: Service Sector Manufacturing Sector Sektor Perkhidmatan---- Sektor Pengeluaran____ _ Others, please specify Lain-lain, nyatakan 8. My immediate superior is a: Male Female Penyelia saya adalah se orang Lelaki __Perempuan __ 9. I am in staff function( e.g. personnel, accounts, admin, etc) in line function( e.g. production, marketing etc) Say a berada dalam fungsi staff (misalnya perjawatan, akaun, pentadbiran, dll.) _____ Saya berada dalam fungsi garisan (misalnya pengeluaran, pemasaran, dll.) ------ 48 Appendix 2 List of Partidpatin1,! Or!!anizations A Service Sector 1. Arthur Andersen & Co. 2. Bank of Commerce (M) Berhad 3. BHL Bank Berhad 4. Southern Bank Berhad B Manufacturing Sector 1. Alcatel Network Sytems (M) Sdn. Bhd. 2. DNP Holdings Berhad 3. Hewlett Packard (M) Sdn. Bhd. 4. Penang Seagate Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. 5. Quantum Peripherals (M) Sdn. Bhd. 6. Robert Bosch (M) Sdn. Bhd. 7. Siemens Semiconductor Sdn. Bhd. 8. Sony Electronics (M) Sdn. Bhd. 49 Appendix 3 Values of Correlation Coefficient® Amongst Statement on Attitudes Towards Women as Managers ------2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ---~--- 1 0.42* 0.44* 0.55* 0.38* 0.49* 0.36* 0.33* 0.24* 0.31 * 0.27* 0.40* 0.33* 0.06 0.24* 0.31* 0.34* 0.34* 0.35* 0.32* 0.20* 2 0.22* 0.35* 0.51 * 0.25* 0.14 0.43* 0.32* 0.21 * 0,18* 0.35* 0.18* 0.06 0.25* 0.30* 0.24* 0.20* 0.39* 0.25* 0.23* 3 0.30* 0.24* 0.32* 0.22* 0.25* 0.25* 0.25* 0.32* 0.44* 0.28* 0.20* 0.26* 0.32* 0.36* 0.37* 0.23* 0.38* 0.39* 4 0.39* 0.29* 0.25* 0.38* 0.43* 0.31 * 0.25* 0.32* 0.28* 0.17 0.22* 0.09 0.33* 0.25* 0.33* 0.26* 0.15 5 0.34* 0.23* 0.53* 0.42* 0.34* 0.38* 0.32* 0.40* 0.26* 0.27* 0.21* 0.26* 0.39* 0.31 * 0.44* 0.35* 6 0.32* 0.33* 0.15 0.29* 0.39* 0.35* 0.43* 0.14 0.17 0.31 * 0.44* 0.43* 0.23* 0.48* 0.37* 7 0.31 * 0.08 0.29* 0.30* 0.23* 0.25* 0.16 0.18* 0.22* 0.20* 0.37* 0.33* 0.27* 0.20* 8 0.52* 0.40* 0.24* 0.30* 0.37* 0.30* 0.23* 0.23* 0.25* 0.23* 0.30* 0.30* 0.24* 9 0.51 * 0.27* 0.24* 0.44* 0.23* 0.16 0.28* 0.28* 0.29* 0.37* 0.24* 0.24* 10 0.36* 0.34* 0.50* 0.22* 0.25* 0.23* 0.25* 0.35* 0.30* 0.29* 0.17 11 0.49* 0.52* 0.24* 0.33* 0.22* 0.25* 0.38* 0.12 0.33* 0.15 12 0.42* 0.39* 0.24* 0.29* 0.26* 0.35* 0.38* 0.31 * 0.31* 13 0.31 * 0.35* 0.30* 0.33* 0.41 * 0.32* 0.41 * 0.26* 14 0.01 0.18* 0.05 0.15 0.25* 0.10 0.12 15 0.24* 0.25* 0.22* 0.14 0.25* 0.12 16 0.39* 0.37* 0.28* 0.30* 0.35* 17 0.67* 0.35* 0.58* 0.47* 18 0.31 * 0.65* 0.57* 19 0.30* 0.32* 20 ------0.37* * p < 0.05 Item 14 is dropped from final analysis 50 Appendix 4 07 Apr 95 SPSS for MS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter AGE GENDER MARITAL EDUCATIO WORK SECTOR SUPERVIS FUNCTION Variab1e(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. FUNCTION 2 .. EDUCATIO 3 .. MARITAL 4.. SUPERVIS 5 .. GENDER 6 .. SECTOR 7 .. AGE 8 .. WORK Multiple R .49249 R Square .24255 Adjusted R Square .1936858 Standard Error 12.29762 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 8 6004.86648 750.60831 Residual 124 18752.69743 151.23143 F = 4.96331 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SEB Beta T SigT AGE -.828931 .580140 -.401772 -1.429 .1556 GENDER -11.821652 2.273607 -.433121 -5.200 .0000 MARITAL -1.018201 2.473239 -.037305 -.412 .6813 EDUCATIO .801618 .690387 .142312 1.161 .2478 WORK .675732 .607743 .347707 1.112 .2683 SECTOR -.613956 2.494433 -.022484 -.246 .8060 SUPERVIS 1.329091 2.327896 .046566 .571 .5691 FUNCTION -3.610159 3.328441 -.098315 -1.085 .2802 (Constant) 106.903434 11.883491 8.996 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 51 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 . Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter GENDER MARITAL EDUCATIO WORK SECTOR SUPERVIS FUNCTION Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. FUNCTION 2 .. EDUCATIO 3 .. MARITAL 4 .. SUPERVIS 5 .. GENDER 6 .. SECTOR 7 .. WORK Multiple R .47966 R Square .23008 Adjusted R Square .18696 Standard Error 12.34875 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5696.11142 813.73020 Residual 125 19061.45249 152.49162 F= 5.33623 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SEB Beta T SigT GENDER -12.133699 2.272504 -.444554 -5.339 .0000 MARITAL -1.575075 2.452493 -.057708 -.642 .5219 EDUCATIO .241770 .570794 .042922 .424 .6726 WORK -.141175 .206972 -.072643 -.682 .4964 SECTOR -.429461 2.501446 -.015727 -.172 .8640 SUPERVIS 1.786080 2.315408 .062578 .771 .4419 FUNCTION -3.791708 3.339844 -.103259 -1.135 .2584 (Constant) 96.442571 9.399345 10.261 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 52 07 Apr 95 SPSS for MS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number I Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter MARITAL EDUCATIO WORK SECTOR SUPERVIS FUNCTION AGE Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. AGE 2 .. SECTOR 3 .. SUPERVIS 4 .. EDUCATIO 5 .. FUNCTION 6 .. MARITAL 7 .. WORK Multiple R .27822 R Square .07740 Adjusted R Square .02574 Standard Error 13.51776 Analysis of Variance OF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 1916.33350 273.76193 Residual 125 22841.23041 182.72984 F= 1.49818 SignifF = .1738 ------Variables in the Equation------ Variable B SEB Beta T SigT MARITAL -.940360 2.718578 -.034453 -.346 .7300 EDUCATIO .137405 .745782 .024394 .184 .8541 WORK .830043 .667245 .427110 1.244 .2158 SECTOR .785933 2.725907 .028782 .288 .7736 SUPERVIS .226197 2.548220 .007925 .089 .9294 FUNCTION -5.871878 3.627303 -.159908 1.619 .1080 AGE -1.118675 .634751 -.542207 1.762 .0804 (Constant) 119.341329 12.795153 9.327 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 53 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter EDUCATIO WORK SECTOR SUPERVIS FUNCTION AGE GENDER Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. GENDER 2 .. WORK 3 .. SECTOR 4 .. SUPERVIS 5.. FUNCTION 6 .. EDUCATIO 7 .. AGE Multiple R .49144 R Square .24151 Adjusted R Square .19904 Standard Error 12.25670 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5979.23481 854.17640 Residual 125 18778.32910 150.22663 F= 5.68592 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SEB Beta T SigT EDUCATIO .791988 .687695 .140602 1.152 .2517 WORK .675178 .605719 .347422 1.115 .2671 SECTOR -.675614 2.481647 .024742 -.272 .7859 SUPERVIS 1.374578 2.317535 .048160 .593 .5542 FUNCTION -3.735384 3.303484 -.101725 -1.131 .2603 AGE -.866567 .570985 -.420014 -1.518 .1316 GENDER -11.815986 2.266000 -.432914 -5.214 .0000 (Constant) 107.796476 11.644949 9.257 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 54 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion ofMissing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable.. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter WORK SECTOR SUPERVIS FUNCTION AGE GENDER MARITAL Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. MARITAL 2 .. SUPERVIS 3 .. GENDER 4 .. SECTOR 5 .. WORK 6 .. FUNCTION 7 .. AGE Multiple R .48406 R Square .23431 Adjusted R Square .19143 Standard Error 12.31473 Analysis ofVariance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5800.97886 828.71127 Residual 125 18956.58505 151.65268 F= 5.46453 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SEB Beta T Sig T WORK .188795 .440476 .097147 .429 .6689 SECTOR -.048679 2.449868 -.001783 -.020 .9842 SUPERVIS 1.514187 2.325664 .053052 .651 .5162 FUNCTION -3.894189 3.324060 -.106050 -1.172 .2436 AGE -.446637 .478323 -.216479 -.934 .3522 GENDER -11.333178 2.237456 -.415225 -5.065 .0000 MARITAL -.920900 2.475259 -.033740 -.372 .7105 (Constant) 110.640279 11.455314 9.65 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 55 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter SECTOR SUPERVIS FUNCTION AGE GENDER MARITAL EDUCATIO Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. EDUCATIO 2.. SUPERVIS 3 .. MARITAL 4 .. FUNCTION 5 .. GENDER 6 .. SECTOR 7 .. AGE Multiple R .48476 R Square .23500 Adjusted R Square .19215 Standard Error 12.30923 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5817.90570 831.12939 Residual 125 18939.65821 151.51727 F= 5.48538 Signif F = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation------ Variable B SEB Beta T SigT SECTOR -.463082 2.493092 -.016959 -.186 .8529 SUPERVIS 1.723592 2.302871 .060388 .748 .4556 FUNCTION -3.750883 3.329176 -.102147 -1.127 .2620 AGE -.222121 .196939 -.107659 -1.128 .2615 GENDER -11.945099 2.273040 -.437644 -5.255 .0000 MARITAL -!.012114 2.475569 -.037082 -.409 .6834 EDUCATIO .271923 .500150 .048275 .544 .5876 (Constant) 101.536125 10.869112 9.342 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 56 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter SUPERVIS FUNCTION AGE GENDER MARITAL EDUCATIO WORK Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. WORK 2 .. GENDER 3.. SUPERVIS 4 .. FUNCTION 5 .. MARITAL 6 .. EDUCATIO 7 .. AGE Multiple R .49211 R Square .24218 Adjusted R Square .19974 Standard Error 12.25132 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5995.70485 856.52926 Residual 125 18761.85906 150.09487 F= 5.70659 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SEB Beta T SigT SUPERVIS 1.270618 2.307024 .044518 .551 .5828 FUNCTION -3.972015 2.974908 -.108169 -1.335 .1842 AGE -.821540 .577181 -.398189 -1.423 .1571 GENDER 11.761251 2.251815 -.430908 -5.223 .0000 MARITAL -1.054750 2.459482 .038644 -.429 .6688 EDUCATIO .768453 .674562 .136424 1.139 .2568 WORK .667595 .604559 .343520 1.104 .2716 (Constant) 107.028349 11.827951 9.049 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 57 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter FUNCTION AGE GENDER MARITAL EDUCA TIO WORK SECTOR Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. SECTOR 2 .. AGE 3 .. GENDER 4 .. EDUCATIO 5 .. FUNCTION 6 .. MARITAL 7 .. WORK Multiple R .49046 R Square 24056 Adjusted R Square .19803 Standard Error 12.26442 Analysis of Variance . DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5955.56903 850.79558 Residual 125 18801.99488 150.41596 F= 5.65629 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T FUNCTION -3.363669 3.291413 -.091602 -1.022 .3088 AGE -.874438 .573087 -.423829 -1.526 .1296 GENDER 11.703371 2.258036 -.428788 -5.183 .0000 MARITAL -1.085222 2.463782 -.039760 -.440 .6604 EDUCATIO .828610 .686907 .147104 1.206 .2300 WORK .728618 .599021 .374920 1.216 .2261 SECTOR -.468614 2.474710 -.017161 -.189 .8501 (Constant) 108.178476 11.640252 9.293 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 58 07 Apr 95 SPSS forMS WINDOWS Release 6.0 ****MULTIPLE REGRESSION**** Listwise Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable .. TOTAL Block Number 1. Method: Enter AGE GENDER MARITAL EDUCATIO WORK SECTOR SUPERVIS Variable(s) Entered on Step Number 1.. SUPERVIS 2 .. MARITAL 3 .. EDUCATIO 4 .. GENDER 5 .. SECTOR 6 .. AGE 7 .. WORK Multiple R .48514 R Square .23536 Adjusted R Square .19254 Standard Error 12.30630 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 7 5826.95134 832.42162 Residual 125 18930.61256 151.44490 F= 5.49653 SignifF = .0000 ------Variables in the Equation ------ Variable B SEB Beta T Sig T AGE -.852952 .580126 -.413414 -1.470 .1440 GENDER -12.143933 2.255698 -.444929 -5.384 .0000 MARITAL -1.263352 2.464627 -.046287 -.513 .6091 EDUCATIO .856651 .689006 .152082 1.243 .2161 WORK .700797 .607732 .360605 1.153 .2511 SECTOR -1.809008 2.239489 -.0662t8 -.808 .4208 SUPERVIS 1.001588 2.309859 .035092 .434 .6653 (Constant) 107.090214 1.890626 9.006 .0000 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 59