+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com
  

Textbook : Women and Men in Management- By Gary and Powell 4th edition

Can be acceseed here : https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=5B098E571CE84E67BD7492ED219C6F12

EXERCISE 1 first chapter

 

 

1.1:  Review the implications of the concepts presented in Chapter 1 of Powell’s  

        book (pp. 1-11).  Provide your own personal opinions of these concepts, and

        evaluate your reasons for holding these opinions.

 

1.2:  Summarize the major developments in the history of sex roles during the

        past century (Powell, pp. 14-34).  If you had to select one event that most

        dramatically changed the concept of sex roles, what would that event be? 

        Justify your answer.

 

1.3:  Discuss the issue of sex segregation of occupations (Powell, pp. 26-33),

        including the sex gap in earnings.

 

1.4:  Despite tremendous gains in the number of women in management

        positions during the past century,
top
management is still male-dominated.    

        Explain why this discrepancy still exists.  Will women ever achieve equality

        in top management positions?  Justify your answer.

 

1.5:  Outline and evaluate the evidence for sex differences and gender

        differences (Powell, pp. 4-5; 38-47).

 

1.6:  Explain the concept of androgyny (Powell, pp.47-52).  Include in your

        answer a discussion of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), and the

        potential advantages and disadvantages of being androgynous.

 

1.7:  Summarize the various influences on sex role development in children

        Powell, pp. 52-61).  Evaluate the relative strength of each influence, and

        provide examples to support your conclusions.

 

1.8:  Discuss the limitations of gender stereotypes and roles (Powell, pp. 60-63).

 

1.9:  Discuss the concept of influencing gender stereotypes and roles (Powell,

        pp. 63-64), citing specific evidence to support each claim. 

 

1.10:  What is the most important thing you have learned by completing this first

          Exercise.  Explain your answer.

To Laura Graves for her love and support and to the memory of my
grandmother Edna Powell for all the quarters and much more

GARY N. POWELL

University of Connecticut

Foreword ix

Belle Rose Ragins

Acknowledgments xii

1. Sex, Gender, and Work 1

On the Psychology of Sex 1

Sex Versus Gender 4

Dimensions of Diversity 5

Watching Out for Biases 7

Organization of the Book 9

2. Yesterday and Today 14

Girl Power at School, but Not at the Office 14

The 20th Century: A Century of Change 15

The First Half 15

The Second Half 17

A Snapshot of the Present 24

The Sex Segregation of Occupations 26

The Sex Gap in Earnings 30

Looking Forward 33

3. Becoming Women and Men 38

Boys Mow Lawns, Girls Do Dishes 38

Sex Differences 40

Children’s Interests and Activities 40

Adults’ Social Behavior 44

Gender Stereotypes 45

Gender Identity 47

Sexism 50

Nature and Nurture 52

Gender Socialization 54

Parents 54

Schools 57

The Mass Media 59

Beyond Gender Stereotypes and Roles 62

Limitations of Gender Stereotypes 62

Limitations of Gender Roles 63

What’s Next? 64

4. Making Employment Decisions 74

Laura M. Graves & Gary N. Powell

Out of Sight Keeps Women in Mind 74

Self-Selection Decisions 75

Reactions to Jobs 76

Reactions to Organizations 79

Job Search Behavior 81

Selection Decisions 84

How and When Does Sex Discrimination Occur? 84

Who Discriminates Against Whom? 88

Improving Employment Decisions 91

Improving Self-Selection Decisions 91

Improving Selection Decisions 93

5. Working in Diverse Teams 103

Laura M. Graves & Gary N. Powell

Lehman Brothers and Sisters 103

Sex Effects 104

Sex Similarity Effects 106

Sex Diversity Effects 109

The Importance of Situational Factors 110

Making Mixed-Sex Teams Work 114

Proactive Organizations and Team Leaders 116

Responsible Team Members 118

6. Leading People 126

The Gender and Leadership Wars 126

Leader Preferences 129

Leader Stereotypes 130

Attitudes Toward Women as Leaders 134

Leader Behavior and Effectiveness 136

Theories of Leadership 136

Gender Stereotypes and Leadership Theories 139

Sex Differences 140

Promoting Effective Leadership 143

7. Dealing With Sexuality in the Workplace 151

Touching Me, Touching You-at Work 151

Sexual Harassment 153

Definitions 153

Explanations 156

Experiences 159

Workplace Romance 161

Causes 161

Dynamics 163

Consequences 165

Addressing the Intersection of Sexuality and Work 168

Sexual Harassment 168

Workplace Romance 172

8. Managing the Work-Family Interface 180

Jennifer’s Story 180

We Are Family 183

A Juggling Act 186

Work and Family as Enemies 187

Work and Family as Allies 189

Work and Family as Segmented or Integrated 191

The Meaning of Success 192

Work-Family Decisions 195

Decision About Whether to Work Part-Time or Full-Time 195

Decision About Whether to Start a Business 196

Decision About Number of Hours to Devote to Job or Business 197

Decision About Whether to Have a Voluntary Employment Gap 197

Decision About Whether to Quit a Job 198

Being Family-Friendly 199

Family-Friendly Initiatives 199

Family-Friendly Culture 202

Balancing Work and Family 203

The Rest of Jennifer’s Story 206

9. Promoting Nondiscrimination, Diversity, and Inclusion 213

We Love Diversity 213

Legal Requirements 215

Refraining From Discrimination 215

Taking Affirmative Action 220

Business Imperatives 221

Why Promote Diversity? 222

Why Promote Inclusion? 224

Organizational Actions 226

Setting and Communicating Goals 227

Identifying and Rewarding the Right Behavior 229

Stimulating Employee Involvement 231

Educating Employees 233

Implementing Cultural Change 235

Conclusions for the Book 236

Index 241

About the Author 249

About the Contributor 251

“We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political
rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us
and our daughters forever.”

-Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906)

“Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an
assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly
promoted as a male schlemiel.”

-Bella Abzug (1920-1998)

“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”

-Gloria Steinem (1934)

hen the first edition of Women & Men in Management was
published in 1988, the field was just emerging as an established area of
scientific inquiry. Groundswells of new studies were being published, and
excitement was in the air. We felt like we were discovering vast new
frontiers of knowledge-the Wild West of Research. But our excitement was
quickly tempered when we looked at the data. The picture was bleak: gender
discrimination was rampant, the glass ceiling was glacier-thick, and women
earned 70% of the pay of their male counterparts 2 But we were optimistic.
Surely things would change once the inequities were uncovered? We
remained confident that gender equity was just around the corner and that by
the turn of the century women would receive equal status in the workplace.

Time passed, and over 20 years later, we have made precious little
progress toward that goal. In the United States, women are more likely than
men to pursue undergraduate and most graduate degrees, but earn only 80%
of the pay of their male counterparts.3 It appears that the glass ceiling is
made of kryptonite; only 13.5% of women have made it to the Fortune 500
executive suite, and women are actually losing ground in some states.4 Even
as women are poised to become the majority of the workforce, they
increasingly encounter workplaces replete with harassment and
discrimination, experiences that are amplified for women who face a double
or triple “whammy” based on their race, ethnicity, disability, weight,
religion, socioeconomic class, or sexual orientations

But the critical challenge before us is not our lack of progress, it is the
myth of equity: the unfounded belief that stereotyping and discrimination are
things of the past. Whether it is based on wishful thinking, myopia, or just
plain propaganda, the myth of equity is perhaps most damaging when held
by the younger generation of women. These young women can be seen
thanking the early “trailblazers” for forging the path to workplace equity, as
if somehow the trailblazers banished sexism with a swift wave of their laser
sword or magic wand. The trailblazers shake their heads; they recognize that

gender equity remains more of a wish than a reality, that misogyny is alive
and well within and outside the workplace, and that the bright young women
marching into the workforce will be greeted with virulent new strains of
modern sexism that are more pernicious and damaging than ever. These
resistant new strains are entrenched deep in our psyche and, like the strains
of old, distort our perceptions and frame our expectations. The classic 1950s
film clip of the female secretary being chased around the desk by her
lecherous male boss has been replaced with a new DVD featuring either
Sigourney Weaver perched on her throne of a desk, ready to be toppled, or
Sandra Bullock, realizing-thank God not too late-that work can never take
the place of a real man. These young women are now told that they can have
it all-and they believe it. And if they don’t get it all-well, they have only
themselves to blame. We rarely witness their male counterparts grappling
with these issues. The myth of equity persists and permeates our
expectations of ourselves and of others.

So it is now, more than ever before, that we need this new edition of
Women and Men in Management. This gem of a book shines the brightest in
these dark times. Gary Powell has once again produced a volume that
documents the current state of research on gender in the workplace. The
author does a spectacular job of synthesizing an array of over 700 studies
and articles that document not only the current state of gender in the
workforce, but also the full range of developmental, social, and societal
variables that have led to this current state of affairs. This book not only
challenges the myth of equity-it roundly refutes it-and not a moment too
soon.

We are grateful for such a fine volume. Now, if only it came out in
DVD.

Notes

1. Belle Rose Ragins is Professor of Human Resource Management
at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

2. Powell, G. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. (1987). Employment and Earnings 34 (6), computed from p.
46, table A-22.

3. U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Majority of undergrads and grad
students are women, Census Bureau reports. Retrieved January 5,
2010, from http://www.census .gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/education/007909.html; Marklein, M.
(October, 19, 2005). College gender gap widens: 57% are women.
USA Today. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ 2005-10-19-male-college-
cover_x.htm; U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Census Bureau releases
data showing relationship between education and earnings. Retrieved
January 5, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/education/ 013618.html; U.S.
Department of Labor. (2008). Quick stats on women workers, 2008.
Retrieved January 5, 2010, from
http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm; Institute for Women’s Policy
Research (2009). The gender wage gap: 2008. Retrieved January 5,
2010 from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf.

4. Catalyst. (2009). 2009 Catalyst Census of the Fortune 500 reveals
women missing from critical business leadership. Retrieved December
28, 2009, from http://www.catalyst.org/press-release/ 161 /2009-
catalyst-census-of-the-fortune500-reveals-women-missing-from-
critical-business-leadership; Milwaukee Women Inc. (2007). Missed
opportunities in corporate leadership: 2007 Executive summary report.
Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://www.milwaukeewomeninc.org/
research.php.

5. Rampell, C. (February 5, 2009). As layoffs surge, women may
pass men in job force. New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2010,
from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/02/06/business/06women.html;
Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in
the workplace: Do race and gender matter? Group and Organization

Management, 28,1,45-74; Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (Eds.) (2005).
Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

any people contributed to the preparation of this fourth
edition of Women and Men in Management. I wish to express my deepest
gratitude to:

1. Laura Graves for being a terrific collaborator on Chapters 4 and 5 of this
edition as well as coauthor of the previous edition.

2. Tony Butterfield for being my great mentor, collaborator, colleague, and
friend.

3. The School of Business of the University of Connecticut, for giving me
the opportunity to teach the course on Women and Men in Management
that won the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women Innovation
Award and inspired the writing of this book.

4. My colleagues in the Gender and Diversity in Organizations Division
(formerly Women in Management Division) of the Academy of
Management, for providing both a forum for the sharing of research
findings and a stimulus for creative thinking on this topic.

5. My parents, Norm and Zina Powell, for being as encouraging and
supportive as parents could ever be.

6. Tiger the Cat for unlimited love, affection, and play.

7. Again, and most of all, Laura Graves, my wife and favorite colleague, for
standing by me all the way.

There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant
personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting a prejudice,
unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel, have run riot
to such an extent as here.’

Psychologists love dichotomies. There are always two kinds of people.

ur story begins from a pithy word from the first psychologist to
undertake an extensive and systematic examination of the psychological
characteristics of the sexes 3 In 1910, Helen Thompson Woolley issued a
stinging indictment of research about the topic of sex differences that is
quoted at the beginning of this chapter. Since then, thousands of studies on
the topic of have been published by scholars around the world. Has anything
changed?

One century later, Susan Fiske, a prominent modern-day psychologist,
offered the humorous take on psychologists who conduct research about sex
differences that appears in the second quote above. When psychologists
consider the characteristics of two groups such as men and women, they tend
to view members of the two groups as opposite in traits. This tendency in
turn influences the psychologists’ research, including the topics studied, the
labels assigned to traits, and the interpretation of results and conclusions
reached. It is also exhibited in popular conceptions of how the sexes differ.
For example, John Gray’s best-selling book, Men Are from Mars, Women

Are from Venus, asserted that women and men are so different in personal
traits that they might as well be from different planets. Not all people agree;
on a Web site titled The Rebuttal from Uranus, Susan Hamson slammed
Gray’s book as “a sexist, patronizing, male-centered invective which does
little more than perpetuate long-held negative gender stereotypes.” However,
even if psychologists and other observers are predisposed to believe that sex
differences in personal traits are prevalent, this does not necessarily mean
that sex differences are absent. Moreover, even if sex differences in personal
traits that men and women bring to the workplace are minimal, their
experiences in the workplace may differ dramatically.’

Women and Men in Management, Fourth Edition, examines the evolving
roles and experiences of women and men in the global workplace.
Significant changes have occurred over the last half-century in the status of
women and men and in their interactions at work. However, sharply different
views have been offered about the implications of these changes for the
workplace of the future. Some believe that all of the needed changes have
taken place and remaining sex-based inequalities in the workplace will
continue to erode. According to an optimistic view of trends toward gender
equality, the inevitable consequence of egalitarian values among parents to
provide their daughters and sons with similar opportunities, among citizens
to support legal interventions such as antidiscrimination laws and
requirements for family leaves, and among organizations to offer women-
friendly programs such as on-site child care will be equal opportunities and
pay for women and men. In short, the day will come when a person’s sex no
longer matters at work.5

However, others believe that needed changes have stalled and remaining
sex-based inequalities are now entrenched. According to a pessimistic view,
although men are doing more housework, they are not exactly embracing the
opportunity to take on equal responsibility with their female partners for
child care and other household demands. Also, although women have sought
access to male-intensive occupations (those in which two thirds or more of
the workforce is male) in greater numbers, fewer men have sought access to
female-intensive occupations (those in which two thirds or more of the

workforce is female). Further, the legal requirement of equal opportunities
for women and men in the workplace is not equivalent to a societal
commitment to ensure that they will be similarly oriented to take advantage
of such opportunities. Although we do not know whether the future will
offer greater support for the optimistic or pessimistic view, the evidence
about the present state of affairs in the workplace offers a more mixed
picture.

The role of women in the workplace has been expanding steadily
worldwide. In the United States, the proportion of women in the labor force
(i.e., the proportion of all adults employed or seeking employment who are
women), which was 42% in 1980, has risen to 47%. This proportion varies
widely across countries, for example, 14% in Saudi Arabia, 27% in
Morocco, 37% in Chile, and 48% in Finland. However, the trend in almost
all countries has been in the same direction, toward the increased
employment of women. Similarly, although the proportion of women in
management in different countries varies widely due to differences in
national culture and definitions of the term manager, the trend in almost all
countries has been toward the increased representation of women in the
managerial ranks.’

Despite these trends, female managers are concentrated in the lower
management levels and hold positions with less authority than men. The
higher the level of the organization, the fewer women are found. Although
definitions of what constitutes “top management” vary among companies,
the proportion of female executive officers, typically considered as top
management, is only 14% in Fortune 500 corporations and less than 5% in
many nations. Women are also underrepresented in corporate boards,
consisting of 15% of board directors in Fortune 500 corporations (the 500
highestgrossing closely held and public U.S. corporations), 12% of board
directors in FTSE 100 companies (the 100 most highly capitalized United
Kingdom companies listed on the London Stock Exchange), and about 10%
of board directors in the largest companies listed on the national stock
exchange of European Union member states. Around the world, a glass
ceiling appears to restrict women’s access to top management positions

solely because they are women. Women are not allowed to advance in
managerial hierarchies as far as men with equivalent credentials.’

The economic status of women in the workplace remains lower than that
of men. The average female full-time worker continues to be paid less than
the average male full-time worker. This gap is partly due to the lower
average wages of workers in female-intensive occupations than that of
workers in male-intensive occupations. Also, women are paid less than men
in the same occupation and often in the same job. The ratio of female-to-
male wages for similar work is below 100% in all nations for which the
World Economic Forum reports data, with the highest value for Uzbekistan
(83%) and the lowest value for Bolivia (45%); the ratio for the United States
is 67%, ranking 64th out of 125 nations.’

The global labor force also remains sharply segregated on the basis of sex.
In recent years, women have shown more interest in entering maleintensive
occupations than men have shown in entering female-intensive occupations,
which is not surprising because workers in male-intensive occupations are
the higher paid. However, women continue to be crowded into a lower-
paying set of occupations than are men.9

Thus, differences in workplace status according to biological sex remain
strong, even though there have been considerable changes. Is it only a matter
of time until the proportions of women and men in all managerial levels and
all occupations become essentially equal, until women and men are paid
equal wages for equal work, and until individuals’ work experiences are
unaffected by their biological sex? As we shall see, it will depend on actions
that organizations and individuals take.

In this book, we make a distinction between two frequently used terms: sex
and gender. The term sex (or biological sex) refers to the binary categories of
male and female, which are determined by biological characteristics of

individuals such as their physiological properties and reproductive
apparatus. The term gender refers to the psychosocial implications of being
male or female, such as beliefs and expectations about what kinds of
attitudes, behaviors, skills, values and interests are more appropriate for or
typical of one sex than the other. Thus, gender is a term used in a social
context to refer to the role associated with being male or female.”

The study of sex differences examines how males and females actually
differ. In contrast, the study of gender differences focuses on how people
believe that males and females differ. For example, a sex difference in
leadership style would exist if female leaders were more considerate of their
subordinates than were male leaders. There would be a gender difference in
leadership style if people believed that female leaders were more considerate
of their subordinates than were male leaders. However, there could be a
gender difference in leadership style without a corresponding sex difference,
and vice versa. Furthermore, gender differences can cause sex differences.
For example, if parents believe that the developmental needs of their sons
differ from those of their daughters, they may raise their children in ways
that reinforce that belief. In the same vein, if supervisors believe that the
skills and interests of their female and male subordinates differ, they may
assign tasks to their subordinates in ways that reinforce that belief. In each
case, the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy-when expectations cause
behavior that makes the expectations come true. We identify many
workplace situations in which self-fulfilling prophecies are likely to occur.”

As we consider the effects of sex differences on work-related behavior, we
also need to consider the effects of gender differences. Sex differences
influence how people are disposed to behave in work settings. Gender
differences influence how people react to others’ behavior in such settings.
Gender differences are manifested in stereotypes, prejudice, and
discrimination. A stereotype is a set of beliefs about the personal attributes
of a group of people. Stereotyping is a cognitive activity, related to thinking,
learning, and remembering distinctions between various groups of people. In
contrast, people who display prejudice, or a negative attitude toward
members of other groups, are engaging in an emotional activity. Finally,

discrimination, a behavioral activity, is exhibited in how people treat
members of other groups and in the decisions they make about others. We
have reason to be concerned about all three of these phenomena. All of us
maybe targets of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In addition, we
may engage in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.12

Sex represents only one of many personal characteristics that may influence
individuals’ experiences in the workplace. People differ in many ways, some
of which are changeable, others less amenable to change. Primary
dimensions of diversity are essentially unchangeable personal characteristics
that exert significant lifelong impacts. Sex is a primary dimension of
diversity, along with race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and physical
abilities/disabilities. Together, primary dimensions of diversity shape our
basic self-image and sense of identity. They affect our early learning
experiences, and there is typically no escaping their impact throughout the
course of our lives.”

Secondary dimensions of diversity, on the other hand, are changeable
personal characteristics. These characteristics are acquired and may be
modified or abandoned throughout life. Education, income, marital and
parental status, religion, political affiliation, and work experience are some
secondary dimensions of diversity of importance to many people. People
also distinguish themselves in many other ways, such as in their choices of
collegiate fraternities or sororities, hobbies, activities, voluntary
associations, clothing and grooming style, and music preferences. Of course,
a person does not completely determine his or her secondary characteristics.
For instance, educational background, work experience, income, or marital
status will be affected by other people’s decisions. However, people
generally have more control over the secondary dimensions of diversity in
their lives than over the primary dimensions of diversity.

The primary dimensions of diversity may fall into different categories,
including whether group membership is visible and whether it is regarded as
changeable. For example, sexual orientation is not necessarily observable
and opinions differ as to whether it is changeable. As a result, gays and
lesbians face decisions about “coming out.” They may decide to disclose

their sexual orientation to family members and friends on a person-to-person
basis based on the level of trust in the relationship and the anticipated
reaction to the disclosure. However, they are unlikely to disclose their sexual
orientation to coworkers if they perceive or fear workplace discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation.”

In contrast, sex is highly visible and not easily changed. People have little
choice about “coming out” as female or male. The psychologist Sandra Bern
once asked audience members if they had ever known anyone personally
without noticing that person’s sex. Few could answer yes. Sex is an
important characteristic to most people when forming their impression of
someone. Even if sex is not important to a particular person’s own sense of
identity, other people may be influenced by their beliefs and expectations
associated with that person’s sex.

Thus, people categorize themselves and may be categorized by others
along many different dimensions of diversity, both primary and secondary.
The focus of this book is the influence of categorizations of people
according to sex on what transpires in the workplace. However, sex is not
isolated from other dimensions of diversity. The effect of sex on how people
develop their senses of identity and on how they are treated in the workplace
cannot be separated from the effects of race, ethnicity, age, sexual
orientation, physical abilities/disabilities, and various secondary dimensions
of diversity.

Researchers often ignore the interdependence of sex and other dimensions
of diversity. For example, many studies of sex or gender differences have not
reported the racial or ethnic group of the individuals who were the focus of
the study. By ignoring issues of race and ethnicity, such studies reflect an
underlying assumption that sex and gender differences are similar across all
racial and ethnic groups. That is, White women, Black women, Hispanic
women, Asian women, and women of other racial and ethnic groups are
assumed to have similar personal characteristics and experiences, as are
White men, Black men, Hispanic men, Asian men, and so on. We need to
guard against making such assumptions ourselves.”

In addition, people often compare the effects of stereotyping, prejudice,
and discrimination on the basis of different dimensions of diversity and offer
conclusions about which “ism” (e.g., sexism, racism, ageism, heterosexism)
has worse consequences. For example, Hillary Clinton, a White woman, and
Barack Obama, a man often characterized as Black although he is of mixed
race, were leading contenders for the nomination of the Democratic Party for
the U.S. presidency in the 2008 election; Obama won the nomination and
subsequent election. During the campaign, considerable debate took place in
the media over which candidate was subject to greater discrimination,
Clinton on the basis of sex or Obama on the basis of race. Clinton was the
target of sexism in comments about her display of emotions, whereas Obama
was the target of racism in comments about his Muslim-sounding middle
name, Hussein. Gloria Steinem, a prominent feminist, argued that sexism
trumped racism in the campaign to the disadvantage of Clinton, asserting
that “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether
the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White
House.” However, Obama faced a challenge in handling issues of both
gender and race; a political observer noted, “As a Black man, he must be
careful not to appear too hostile toward a White woman.”6

Although the comparison of sexism and racism in media accounts of the
Clinton-Obama contest may have educated some people about the kinds of
stereotypi