- Email: [email protected]
Gender and situational differences in managers' values: A look at work and home lives
.I BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
325
Gender and Situational Differences in Managers’ Values: A Look at Work and Home Lives Leonard
H. Chusmir
Florida International
Barbara Florida Atlantic
University
Parker University
This study examined gender differences in values of 258 managers (127 women, 131 men) in 2 separate worlds: work and personal life. The subjects were employed in a variety of organizations in Southeast Florida, and ranked the importance of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values using Rokeach’s Value Survey Scale. Each gender reported strikingly similar work values, but different personal values. Both ranked values differently in work and home lives, suggesting dual situational values that also vary by gender. Implications for organizations and research were discussed.
Introduction Values are guiding principles in individuals’ lives, and while values may vary between individuals and groups, particularly cross-culturally, they tend to function similarly for people in 2 ways. First, values grow out of the individual’s understanding of the world (McClelland, 1985), and second, they shape current behavior as well as future attitudes (England, 1967; Huismans and Kosc, 1982; Rokeach, 1968a). In the business world, values have been shown to be important in managerial decision making (Allport et al., 1960; Maslow, 1959; Parsons, 1956; Rokeach, 1968b), in managerial success (England and Lee, 1974; Munson and Posner, 1980; Ryan et al., 1981; Watson and Williams, 1977) and in organizational effectiveness (Brunson, 1973; Learned and Katz, 1959). The most popular among several commonly used measures of values is Rokeach’s (1986a, b) Value Survey (VS), which categorizes values as terminal-preferable end states of existence-and instrumental-modes of conduct used to attain those preferred end states (Rokeach, 1968a).
Address correspondence to Prof. Leonard H. Chusmir, Department of Management and International College of Business Administration, Florida International University, University Park, Miami, FL 33199.
Journal of Business Research 23, 325-335 (1991) 0 1991 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
Business,
0148-2%3/91/$3.50
326
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir and B. Parker
Rokeach (1973) formally defines values as global beliefs that guide actions and judgments across a variety of situations. Consistent with that definition, his Value Survey (VS) scale-as is true with other values scales (see Robinson and Shaver, 1978 for a selected list)-views individuals as having only one set of values. The various values in the set are arranged in a personal hierarchy, which the individual uses as a standard for morally judging and comparing the self to others (England, 1967; Huismans and Kosc, 1982; Rokeach, 1968a) in all life situations. The present study, however, proposes that individuals may have 2 different hierarchies of values rather than one-one hierarchy of values is considered important to the personal/family life and the other to guide judgment and behavior in work life. Existing research does not address this possibility, and so research examining dual value sets is important to discover if managers possess 2 different sets of values rather than one. In addition, the increased number of baby boom managers has introduced social changes believed sufficient to alter traditional work values (Bartolome and Evans, 1979; Yankelovich, 1981), and this is a compelling reason to re-examine work values. The latter set of values, changed or unchanged, would be of greatest practical importance to organizations, but an understanding of home/family values also may aid firms that hope to reduce traditional barriers between work and home life. There is general agreement that work success most often requires a pragmatic value orientation (England, 1978; Watson and Ryan, 1979; Watson & Simpson, 1978; Whitely and England, 1980), whereas success in traditional social situations as well as family situations more typically requires an expressive, humanistic value orientation (Feather, 1984). The pragmatic orientation requires objectivity, but the humanistic orientation is usually subjective, factoring in relationships and selffulfillment. If individuals behave consistently from one situation to another as would be suggested by personality trait theory, then workers with only one set of values would very likely find themselves in some work situations that require behavior inconsistent with their values. For example, a humanistic manager might find it difficult to operate in an exclusively “bottom-line” environment. The inconsistency or incongruity might then lead to high levels of role conflict (Bern and Lenney, 1976; Chusmir and Koberg, 1986). Holland (1959, 1966) would say that people should work in jobs that require behavior consistent with their personality type because their work performance (behavior) would depend on the congruity between their personality and the type of work environment. In a similar way, Myers-Briggs Type theorists (Myers and McCaulley, 1985)-basing their work on Jungian thought-argue that personality type differences result in behavioral differences. Because values are an essential ingredient of personality, it makes intuitive sense that one’s values also would impact one’s work behavior. In effect, personality trait theory suggests that organizations should tailor work situations to the individual’s values to achieve personwork fit. On the other hand, there is strong theoretical and empirical evidence from both Rotter (1954) and Mischel (1968) ( social learning theory) to suggest that behavior changes more because of the situation a person is in than her/his personality. If the situation changes from the work to the personal environment, social learning theory would predict that behavior would change accordingly. Since behavior is partially guided by and sequentially fohows values (McClelland, 1985; Rokeach,
J BUSN RES 19X:23:325-335
Manager Values and Gender Differences
327
1968a), it is logical to assume that in 2 different situations (work and personal), 2 different sets of behavior likely follow 2 different sets of values. This suggests that managers would follow one set of values consistent with their personal/home situation and another that is more consistent with their behavior in managerial work situations. Another situational factor to consider relates to the source of values. Values are derived from individuals’ perception of their world. If their work world is understood to demand pragmatism but their family life is understood to demand humanism, people may cope by compartmentalizing life, developing a hierarchy of work values and a hierarchy of home values. In the only published study of either women or men in the 2 situations (Pirnot and Dustin, 1986), women homemakers and career women showed substantial differences in their priority of values, with career women placing a higher priority on the political value and homemakers a higher priority on the religious value. The ordering of values into a hierarchy also showed major differences from studies conducted with similar groups in previous decades. For all the above reasons, it was expected that: H-la:
Women managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) cantly between
H-lb:
their at-work
and at-home
will differ signifi-
situations.
Men managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) between their at-work and at-home situations.
will differ significantly
Because society assigns women and men different social roles, each gender is brought up differently. As a consequence, their value systems vary somewhat. Prework socialization for females traditionally encourages social relationships, whereas socialization for males concentrates on competition and achievement. Empirical evidence confirms significant gender differences in studies of values among high school students (Feather, 1984), college students (Beutell and Brenner, 1986; DeVito et al., 1984; Linder and Bauer, 1983; Mahoney, 1975; Mahoney et al., 1979; Parish et al. 1979-1980; Tobacyk, 1979), and among adults (Bhushan, 1979; Gilligan, 1982; Rokeach, 1973). Therefore, it was expected that: H-2: Women and men managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) significantly from each other in at-home situations.
will differ
At work, particularly in management situations of similar stature and level, society no longer expects or wants different behavior or values from women and men. The demand for similar behavior suggests that social learning will occur to the extent that work values will be the same for women and men. Empirical evidence confirms the similarity of values among women and men managers (Boulgarides, 1984; Boulgarides and Rowe, 1983; Powell et al., 1984; Stevens, 1983), among women and men accountants (Kaufman and Fetters, 1980), and among black and white managers (Watson, 1974). Therefore, it was expected that: H-3: Women and men managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) differ significantly from each other in the at-work situation.
will not
Method Subjects This study respondents
is based on information obtained voluntarily from 258 managerial (127 women and 131 men) employed in Southeastern Florida. Ten
328
J BUSN
RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir and B. Parker
full-time working MBA students received permission from their organizations to administer the instrument to their firm’s managers. When approached by their coworkers, 284 subjects voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, and 258 returned their questionnaires. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of management positions, it was necessary to administer the instruments at a number of different companies to obtain a sufficiently large number of female subjects. The subjects represented a variety of organizations in several industries and economic sectors including banking, insurance, travel, utilities, retail, freight, and government. The average respondent was 39 years of age and had spent 9 years with their present organization. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents designated themselves as low-level managers, 25% as middle-level managers, and 7.5% as top-level managers. Men and women were almost equally represented in both lower and middleto-upper-level groups. Almost two-thirds (64%) held a college or advanced degree; 24% had some college, and 12% had no education beyond high school. Sixty percent of respondents were married at the time of the survey, but 25% were previously married or currently separated. Only 18% were never married, and these were found mainly among respondents who were under 25 years of age. Most of the respondents live with a spouse, but 25% live alone or are single parents, 8% live with a significant other, and almost 7% live with a parent. Instrument An unsigned survey questionnaire administered on-site contained demographic information as well as the Value Survey Scale (Rokeach, 1968a) that was used to assess respondents’ hierarchical arrangement of instrumental and terminal values. As described by Rokeach, terminal values refer to preferable end states of existence; instrumental values refer to preferable modes of conduct, and the latter can be thought of as the mechanisms one uses to achieve terminal values or life goals. Using the VS, respondents rank-order the 18 alphabetically listed terminal values according to their relative importance to themselves. On another page, individuals similarly rank an alphabetical list of 18 instrumental values. The VS is selfadministered and takes from 10 to 30 minutes to complete. Test-retest reliabilities are reported in the 0.70s (Rokeach, 1973). Rokeach, believing that different forms of the same scale might be useful, developed several formats and versions of the VS, and found test-retest reliabilities in the 0.60s and 0.70s for each version (Rokeach, 1968a, 1973). This suggests that the VS is a robust instrument regardless of version used. Predictive validity was tested by comparing certain values with outside activities and behavior and/or by comparing one value with another. For this study, consistent with other changes made by Rokeach in the past, the VS was repeated twice. On one page respondents were asked to “consider the list of 18 values printed in alphabetical order. When you are working at your job, how well does each of the values describe what is most important to YOU?” Respon“1” in the space to indicate the most dents were instructed to place a number important value to them, a “2” to indicate the second most important value, and so on. Instrumental value ratings for the work situation also appeared. The following page used the same wording and directions, but asked respondents to rank order values according to When you are in your PERSONAL LIFE (outside of
Manager Values and Gender Differences
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
329
work), either at home or in social situations among friends or family,” both for terminal and instrumental values. One half of the questionnaires listed the work situation VS first followed by the personal situation VS, and the other half reversed the order. No significant response differences were found between the 2 forms of the questionnaire. Data Analyses The terminal and instrumental values were considered ordinal data and there was no assumption of an underlying normal distribution. Accordingly, nonparametric tests were used to examine all hypotheses. The Wilcoxon signed ranks matchedpairs program was used to test for differences between work and personal values within the male and female samples. Using this test, value rankings are summed and differences observed for responses, e.g., values assigned to freedom at work versus values assigned to freedom in personal life. The Mann-Whitney U was used to study differences between women and men managers’ values in the work or personal situation, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine differences between gender groups when controlling for age or management level. Results Hypothesis la predicted that women managers’ values would differ significantly between their work and personal situations. Hypothesis lb predicted the same thing for the men managers. Using the Wilcoxon signed ranks matched-pairs program to test the hypothesis, results shown in Table 1 indicate substantial support for both hypotheses. Rankings by both men and women managers in this study suggest that each gender holds different sets of values for their work and personal worlds. For the men, 15 of 18 terminal values and 12 of 18 instrumental values were ranked significantly different in their work and personal lives (see Table 1). With one exception (honesty), those values that stayed relatively the same in both situations were among the least important to the men. The top 5 terminal values for men managers at work-listed in sequence of importance-were: a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, happiness, family security, and freedom. The top 5 in their personal life were: family security, happiness, a comfortable life, self-respect, and love. The top 5 instrumental values for men managers at work were: responsible, capable, honest, ambitious, and independent, while the top 5 instrumental values for personal life were: loving, honest, responsible, cheerful, and broadminded. The significance of these differences is reflected in reported p value, but direction of difference is observed by looking at both rank and mean for each instrumental value. These show that where significant ranking differences occur for male managers, it is because many instrumental values are rated higher at work than in personal life, including ambitious, capable, independent, logical, and responsible. Men managers ranked only 3 instrumental values significantly higher in personal life than at work, and these were cheerful, forgiving, and loving. In fact, loving was ranked first as an instrumental value in personal life and last in its instrumental value to work life for men managers. For the women, 15 of 18 terminal values and 14 of 18 instrumental values were
330
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Table 1. Comparison
L. H. Chusmir of Rank and Mean Scores of Values
Between
Situations
Work Value Terminal values A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomp A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love National security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom Instrumental values Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled
Rank
Mean
6 8
(7.64) (8.90)
1: 18 11 4 5 3 10 16 17 13 15 2
,,‘::;:; (14.38) (9.36) (7.36) (7.40) (6.67) (8.95) (13.39) (13.67) (10.72) (13.36) (4.55)
1; 7
(1:::;; (7.70)
4 9
(6.03) (8.82)
1: 15 13 16 617
,e:;z; (11.35) (11.17) (12.43) (8.44)
1: 5 8
,rz; (8.34) (8.67)
617 18 17 12 1 10
(8.44) (14.91) (13.56) (10.50) (5.27) (9.12)
bv Gender
Women
Men (n = 131)
Mean
3 12 10 13 17 14 1 8 2 7 5 18 9 16 4 15 6 11
(6.48)“* (9.52)n.s. (9.29)*** (11.84)n.s. (13.66)* (11.98)*** (5.05)*** (5.50)* (5.08)*** (7.80)*** (7.40)*** (14.22)** (9.00)*** (12.73)** (7.35)*** (12.66)*** (7.78)*** (9.36)n.s.
12 5 8 4 11 16 6 7 2 17 9 14 15 1 18 13 3 10
(10.19)*** (8.54)n.s. (9.40)*** (7.93)*** (9.95)** (10.91)n.s. (8.95)*** (9.16)n.s. (5.47)n.s. (11.84)*** (9.63)* (10.69)*** (10.81)*** (5.44)*** (14.88)*” (10.27)n.s. (6.35)** (9.65)n.s.
(n = 127)
Work
Personal Rank
and B. Parker
Rank
Mean
Personal Rank
4 14 10 12 17 13 1 7 2 5 9 18 11 15 3 16 6 8
(6.86)** (11.69)n.s. (9.41)*** (10.46)n.s. (13.54)* (11.41)*** (4.80)*** (8.19)* (5.42)** (7.05)*** (8.98)*** (13.87)** (10.39)** (12.13)*’ (6.43)** (13.11)*** (8.13)*** (8.44)n.s.
9 7 6 8 12 11 5 10 2 17 4 14 15 3 18 16 1 13
(9.49)*** (9.24)n.s. (8.72)*** (9.37)*** (9.79)*** (9.71)* (8.29)*** (9.60)* (5.50)* (12.89)*** (7.64)n.s. (10.84)*** (10.85)*** (6.67)*** (15.00)*** (10.92)n.s. (5.48)n.s. (10.04)*
1; ,r;:;i;
18 415 8 415 3
(14.28) (7.15) (8.53) (7.15) (6.68)
1: 15 14 17 1 10 11 6
(s:::,; (12.94) (11.32) (13.32) (4.83) (9.16) (9.63) (7.72)
3 9
(5.66) (8.75)
1: 15 12 16 6
,r:::;; (11.68) (10.85) (12.20) (8.39)
1: 5 8
(!z:; (7.62) (8.80)
1; 17 13 1 10
,r::::; (13.65) (11.22) (4.96) (9.12)
Mean
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant significantly different in their work and personal lives (see Table 1). All 3 not-significantly-different terminal values and 2 of 4 not-significantly-different instrumental values were ranked by the women among the least important in both situations. The remaining 2 instrumental values not ranked significantly different (responsible and independent), however, were important in both situations for the women. Responsible was listed first by the women managers in both situations, and independent was ranked fifth most important at work, and fourth most important in personal life. The top 5 terminal values for female managers at work ranked
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Manager Values and Gender Differences Table 2. Comparison
of Rank and Mean Scores of Values within Situations by Gender” Work
Personal
Men
Value
Rank
Women
Mean
Rank
(9.36)
12 13 4/s
Terminal values An exciting life A world at peace Equality Mature love Pleasure Self-respect Instrumental values Cheerful Courageous Honest Independent
331
11
3
(5.78)
Mean (10.85)*** (11.16)* (7.15)***
4
“Only those values with significant differences within situations * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p i 0.001; n.s. = not significant.
Women
Men Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
12 13
(9.52) (11.84)
14 12
(11.69)** (10.46)*
5 9 4
(7.40) (9.00) (7.35)
9 11 3
(8.98)** (10.39)** (6.43)*
4 16
(7.93) (10.91)
8 11
(9.37)** (9.71)”
9
(9.63)
4
(7.64)**
(6.92)”
are listed.
were: self-respect, accomplishment, happiness, equality, and freedom. The top 5 in their personal life were: family security, happiness, self-respect, a comfortable life, and inner harmony. The top 5 instrumental values for women managers at work were: responsible, capable, ambitious, honest, and independent, while the top 5 instrumental values for personal life were: responsible, honest, loving, independent, and forgiving. Hypothesis 2 predicted that women and men managers’ values would differ from each other in personal situations. To test this hypothesis, the Mann-Whitney U was used to investigate differences in how women and men managers rate personal values. Results shown in Table 2 only partially confirm the hypothesis. Five significant differences were observed for terminal values of men and women managers in their personal lives, but only 3 significant differences in instrumental values. In the terminal value category, men managers placed higher values on an exciting life, on mature love, and on pleasure in their personal lives than did women managers, whereas women managers placed significantly higher value on a world at peace and on self-respect in their personal lives than did women managers. In the instrumental value category, men managers placed higher values on being cheerful, whereas women managers placed significantly higher value on being courageous and independent. Hypothesis 3 predicted that women and men managers’ values would not differ from each other in work situations. Results of Mann-Whitney U tests show that of the 36 terminal and instrumental values, 32 were not significantly different (see Table 2), essentially confirming Hypothesis 3. In the terminal value category, men managers placed higher values at work in an exciting life, whereas women managers were significantly more likely to rate both a world at peace and equality as more important than their men colleagues. In the only instrumental value difference, men placed more importance on being honest than did the women, although both ranked this mode of conduct very high (third and fourth, respectively). Possible effects of age or management level on work and personal values were
332
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir and B. Parker
examined with Kruskal-Wallis tests, and the results of each test are consistent with those reported above for each of the 3 hypotheses. For example, women at every managerial level rank equality as significantly more important to them at work than do men at comparable levels (H = 14.8; p < O.O'l).
Discussion Women and men managers reported strikingly similar work values, but personal value rankings (both terminal and instrumental) showed substantial differences. Moreover, it was found that both genders ranked values quite differently in their work and home lives, suggesting that people may have dual hierarchies of values: one for work life and one for home life. The study also found different value patterns in women and men managers’ work and personal lives, suggesting that the dual hierarchy varies according to gender. This duality of preferred modes of conduct (values) for both men and women managers lends additional support to social learning theory, which suggests that the situation is a better predictor of behavior than personality (or biological sex). At work organizations have assigned both genders the same managerial role, and executives’ values appear to be quite similar. In their personal situations, women and men managers’ assigned roles are not necessarily similar even though they are both in the at-home or personal situation. Society assigns women and men different social roles within the context of their personal lives. Since the personal roles are different, it is unsurprising that their sets of values differ as well. Because values help to shape current behavior as well as future attitudes (England, 1967; Huismans and Kosc, 1982; Rokeach, 1968a), the similarity in this study’s women and men managers’ values at work suggests that the 2 executive subgroups may not differ in work behavior as much as predicted by some management writers. As a result, the 2 subgroups may complement and strengthen -each other, adding a synergistic effect within the management team. Work values may be more important to organizations than personal values, but understanding the differences between the 2 may aid organizations to lessen traditional barriers between work and home life, and to reduce role conflict, both of which are known to negatively impact organization outcomes. Also, understanding managers’ work and personal values can develop a greater awareness of and sensitivity to the needs of the management team. Often, differences in values important in employees’ personal lives can exacerbate conflict at work between individuals despite the similarity in work values (Brunson, 1985). For that reason, knowing how women and men managers differ in this area can alert organizational change agents to this potential problem. One implication of these finding? is that testing of values for social science research, clinical, or organizational purposes should identify the specific environment rather than an overall, more universal approach. Both women and men managers in this study did not have a single value system descriptive of both home and work environments. Persons in any role or situation are likely to adopt a set of values or mode of conduct congruent with that role or situation. Questionnaires, therefore, which measure values but do not specify the environment, could be misleading. If future research confirms the duality of Rokeach’s’s Value Survey, teachers, managers, and trainers might be well-advised to avoid the trap of ster-
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Manager Values and Gender Differences
eotyping women and/or men according to commonly accepted bromides or myths of gender role behavior and beliefs. If specific terminal or instrumental values are relevant to the performance of a particular job, value testing might be more effective if it limits itself to the work situation. Whether people possess more than the 2 value systems (work and personal life) or if there are multiple modes of conduct, different for any situation in which women and men find themselves, are not identified in this study. Social learning theorists would argue that individuals possess many more than 2 because they tend to occupy many different roles in life in addition to the broadly based work and personal roles. On the other hand, highly work-committed people who identify themselves through their work may not be able to separate their work and personal roles and therefore may possess only one hierarchy of values. Another unanswered question is that even though values may be different in managers’ work and personal lives, is one set stronger or more important than the other? Future research is indicated to answer all these related questions. Subjects in the present study were all American managers and therefore their values are based on American culture. Cross-cultural studies might show sharply different results and might add to our knowledge of values held by men and women in each of the 2 situations. The study used a narrow geographic area as well as a sample of convenience, limiting the generalizability of the results. Further study is indicated, perhaps using a national, randomly selected sample. References Allport, G. W., Vernon, P., and Lindzey, G., Study of Values (rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1960. Bartolome, F., and Evans, P. A. L., Professional Lives versus Private Lives-Shifting Patterns of Organizational Commitment. Organizational Dynamics 7 (Spring 1979): 329. Bern, S. L., and Lenney, E., Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (1976): 634-643.
Beutell, N. J., and Brenner,
0. C., Sex Differences in Work Values. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 28 (1986): 29-41.
Bhushan, A., Values across Sex and Family-Vocations.
Journal of Psychological Researches
23 (1979): 11-16.
Boulgarides,
J. D., A Comparison
of Male and Female Business Managers.
Leadership
&
Organization Development Journal 5 (1984): 27-31.
Boulgarides,
J. D., and Rowe, A. J., Success Patterns
for Women
Managers.
Business
Forum 8 (1983): 22-24.
Brunson, R. W., Personal Values and Their Relationship to Organizational Effectiveness: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Southern Management Association, College Station, TX: Southern Management Association, 1973. Brunson, R. W., A Top Management Personal Values Typology: Inverted Factor Analysis Approach to a Conglomorate. Group & Organization Studies 10 (1985): 118-134. Chusmir, L. H., and Koberg, C. S. Development and Validation of the Sex Role Conflict Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22 (1986): 397-409. DeVito, A. J., Carlson, J. F., and Krau;, J., Values in Relation to Career Orientation, Gender,
England,
and Each Other.
Counseling and Values 28 (1984): 202, 206.
G. W., Organizational
Goals and Expected
Academy of Management Journal 10 (1967): 107-117.
Behavior
of American
Managers.
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir
England, G. W., Managers and their Value Systems: A Five-Country Columbia Journal of World Business (Summer 1978): 35-44.
and B. Parker
Comparative
Study.
England, G. W., and Lee, R., The Relationship between Managerial Success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 411-419. Feather, N. T., Masculinity, Femininity, Psychological Androgyny, and the Structure Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (1984): 6044620. Gilligan,
C., In a Different Voice. Harvard
Holland, J. L., A Theory (1959): 35-45.
of Occupational
University Choice.
Press,
Cambridge,
of
MA. 1982.
Journal of Counseling
Holland, J. L., A Psychological Classification Scheme for Vocations Journal of Counseling Psychology 13 (1966): 278-288.
Psychology 6
and Major
Fields.
Huismans, S. E., and Kosc, Z. J., The Value of “Equality” as a Predictor of Attitudes, Intentions, Behaviors and Value Hierarchization. Studia Psychologiczne 20 (1982): 49-57. Kaufman, D., and Fetters, M. L., Work Motivation and Job Values among Professional Men and Women: A New Accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior 17 (1980): 251262. Learned, E. P., and Katz, R. L., Personal Review 37 (1959): 111-120.
Values and Business
Harvard Business
Decisions.
Linder, F., and Bauer, D., Perception of Values among Male and Female Students. Perceptual and Motor Skills 56 (1983): 59-63. Mahoney, J., An Analysis of the Axiological Structures of Traditional Men and Women. Journal of Psychology 90 (1975): 31-39. Mahoney, J., Heretick, D. M., and Katz, Sex Roles 5 (1979): 311-318. Maslow,
A. H. (Ed.),
McClelland, Mischel,
G. M., Gender
Specificity
New Knowledge in Human Values. Harper
D. C., Human Motivation. Scott-Foresman.
and Proliberation in Value Structures.
& Row, New York.
Glenview,
W., Personality and Assessment. John Wiley, New York.
Munson, J. M., and Posner, B. Z., Concurrent Validation Predicting Job Classification and Success for Organizational Psychology 65 (1980): 536-542.
Undergraduate
1959.
IL. 1985. 1968.
of True Value Inventories in Personnel. Journal of Applied
Myers, I. B., and McCaulley, M. H., Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. 1985. Parish, T. S., Rosenblatt, R. R., and Kappes, B. M., The Relationship between Human Values and Moral Judgment. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior 16 (1979-1980): l-5. Parsons, T., Suggestions for a Sociological Approach Administrative Science Quarterly 1 (1956): 63-68.
to the Theory
of Organizations
Pirnot, K., and Dustin, R., A New Look at Value Priorities for Homemakers Women. Journal of Counseling and Development 64 (1986): 432-436. Powell, G. N., Posner, B. Z., and Schmidt, Human Relations 37 (1984): 909-921.
W. H., Sex Effects on Managerial
I.
and Career
Value Systems.
Robinson, J. P., and Shaver, P. R., Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 1978. Rokeach,
M., Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. Free Press,
Rokeach, M., A Theory of Organization of Social Issues 24 (1968b): 13-33. Rokeach,
New York.
1968a.
and Change within Value-Attitude
M., The Nature of Human Values. Free Press,
Rotter, J. B., Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. NJ. 19.54.
New York. Prentice-Hall,
Systems. Journal
1973. Englewood
Cliffs,
Manager
Values
and Gender
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Differences
Ryan, E. J., Watson, J. G., and Williams, J., The Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success of Female and Male Managers. Journal ofPsychology 108 (1981): 67-72. Stevens, G. E., The Personal Business Ethics of Male and Female Managers: A Comparative Study. Paper presented at 43rd annual meeting of Academy of Management, August 1417, Dallas, TX, 1983, Mississippi State, Mississippi, Academy of Management. Tobacyk, J., Sex Differences in Predictability of Self-Disclosure minal Values. Psychological Reports 44 (1979): 985-986.
for Instrumental
and Ter-
Watson, J. G., An Analysis of the Self-Concept, Personal Values, and Levels of Achievement Motivation of Black and White Managers. Dissertation Abstracts International 35 (1974): 2480-2481. Watson, J. G., and Williams, J., Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success of Black and White Managers. Academy of Management Journal 21 (1977): 313319. Watson, J. G., and Ryan, E. J., A Comparative Study of the Personal and Male Managers. Journal of Psychology 102 (1979): 307-316.
Values
of Female
Watson, J. G., and Simpson, L. R., A Comparative Study of Owner-Manager Personal Values in Black and White Small Businesses. Academy of Management Journal 21 (1978): 313-319. Whitely, W., and England, G. W., Variability in Common Due to Value Orientation and Country Differences. 77-78.
Dimensions of Managerial Values Personnel Psychology 33 (1980):
Yankelovich, D. New Rules in American Life: Searching for Self-Fulfillment Turned Upside Down. Psychology Today (April 1981): 35-91.
in a World
325
Gender and Situational Differences in Managers’ Values: A Look at Work and Home Lives Leonard
H. Chusmir
Florida International
Barbara Florida Atlantic
University
Parker University
This study examined gender differences in values of 258 managers (127 women, 131 men) in 2 separate worlds: work and personal life. The subjects were employed in a variety of organizations in Southeast Florida, and ranked the importance of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values using Rokeach’s Value Survey Scale. Each gender reported strikingly similar work values, but different personal values. Both ranked values differently in work and home lives, suggesting dual situational values that also vary by gender. Implications for organizations and research were discussed.
Introduction Values are guiding principles in individuals’ lives, and while values may vary between individuals and groups, particularly cross-culturally, they tend to function similarly for people in 2 ways. First, values grow out of the individual’s understanding of the world (McClelland, 1985), and second, they shape current behavior as well as future attitudes (England, 1967; Huismans and Kosc, 1982; Rokeach, 1968a). In the business world, values have been shown to be important in managerial decision making (Allport et al., 1960; Maslow, 1959; Parsons, 1956; Rokeach, 1968b), in managerial success (England and Lee, 1974; Munson and Posner, 1980; Ryan et al., 1981; Watson and Williams, 1977) and in organizational effectiveness (Brunson, 1973; Learned and Katz, 1959). The most popular among several commonly used measures of values is Rokeach’s (1986a, b) Value Survey (VS), which categorizes values as terminal-preferable end states of existence-and instrumental-modes of conduct used to attain those preferred end states (Rokeach, 1968a).
Address correspondence to Prof. Leonard H. Chusmir, Department of Management and International College of Business Administration, Florida International University, University Park, Miami, FL 33199.
Journal of Business Research 23, 325-335 (1991) 0 1991 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
Business,
0148-2%3/91/$3.50
326
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir and B. Parker
Rokeach (1973) formally defines values as global beliefs that guide actions and judgments across a variety of situations. Consistent with that definition, his Value Survey (VS) scale-as is true with other values scales (see Robinson and Shaver, 1978 for a selected list)-views individuals as having only one set of values. The various values in the set are arranged in a personal hierarchy, which the individual uses as a standard for morally judging and comparing the self to others (England, 1967; Huismans and Kosc, 1982; Rokeach, 1968a) in all life situations. The present study, however, proposes that individuals may have 2 different hierarchies of values rather than one-one hierarchy of values is considered important to the personal/family life and the other to guide judgment and behavior in work life. Existing research does not address this possibility, and so research examining dual value sets is important to discover if managers possess 2 different sets of values rather than one. In addition, the increased number of baby boom managers has introduced social changes believed sufficient to alter traditional work values (Bartolome and Evans, 1979; Yankelovich, 1981), and this is a compelling reason to re-examine work values. The latter set of values, changed or unchanged, would be of greatest practical importance to organizations, but an understanding of home/family values also may aid firms that hope to reduce traditional barriers between work and home life. There is general agreement that work success most often requires a pragmatic value orientation (England, 1978; Watson and Ryan, 1979; Watson & Simpson, 1978; Whitely and England, 1980), whereas success in traditional social situations as well as family situations more typically requires an expressive, humanistic value orientation (Feather, 1984). The pragmatic orientation requires objectivity, but the humanistic orientation is usually subjective, factoring in relationships and selffulfillment. If individuals behave consistently from one situation to another as would be suggested by personality trait theory, then workers with only one set of values would very likely find themselves in some work situations that require behavior inconsistent with their values. For example, a humanistic manager might find it difficult to operate in an exclusively “bottom-line” environment. The inconsistency or incongruity might then lead to high levels of role conflict (Bern and Lenney, 1976; Chusmir and Koberg, 1986). Holland (1959, 1966) would say that people should work in jobs that require behavior consistent with their personality type because their work performance (behavior) would depend on the congruity between their personality and the type of work environment. In a similar way, Myers-Briggs Type theorists (Myers and McCaulley, 1985)-basing their work on Jungian thought-argue that personality type differences result in behavioral differences. Because values are an essential ingredient of personality, it makes intuitive sense that one’s values also would impact one’s work behavior. In effect, personality trait theory suggests that organizations should tailor work situations to the individual’s values to achieve personwork fit. On the other hand, there is strong theoretical and empirical evidence from both Rotter (1954) and Mischel (1968) ( social learning theory) to suggest that behavior changes more because of the situation a person is in than her/his personality. If the situation changes from the work to the personal environment, social learning theory would predict that behavior would change accordingly. Since behavior is partially guided by and sequentially fohows values (McClelland, 1985; Rokeach,
J BUSN RES 19X:23:325-335
Manager Values and Gender Differences
327
1968a), it is logical to assume that in 2 different situations (work and personal), 2 different sets of behavior likely follow 2 different sets of values. This suggests that managers would follow one set of values consistent with their personal/home situation and another that is more consistent with their behavior in managerial work situations. Another situational factor to consider relates to the source of values. Values are derived from individuals’ perception of their world. If their work world is understood to demand pragmatism but their family life is understood to demand humanism, people may cope by compartmentalizing life, developing a hierarchy of work values and a hierarchy of home values. In the only published study of either women or men in the 2 situations (Pirnot and Dustin, 1986), women homemakers and career women showed substantial differences in their priority of values, with career women placing a higher priority on the political value and homemakers a higher priority on the religious value. The ordering of values into a hierarchy also showed major differences from studies conducted with similar groups in previous decades. For all the above reasons, it was expected that: H-la:
Women managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) cantly between
H-lb:
their at-work
and at-home
will differ signifi-
situations.
Men managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) between their at-work and at-home situations.
will differ significantly
Because society assigns women and men different social roles, each gender is brought up differently. As a consequence, their value systems vary somewhat. Prework socialization for females traditionally encourages social relationships, whereas socialization for males concentrates on competition and achievement. Empirical evidence confirms significant gender differences in studies of values among high school students (Feather, 1984), college students (Beutell and Brenner, 1986; DeVito et al., 1984; Linder and Bauer, 1983; Mahoney, 1975; Mahoney et al., 1979; Parish et al. 1979-1980; Tobacyk, 1979), and among adults (Bhushan, 1979; Gilligan, 1982; Rokeach, 1973). Therefore, it was expected that: H-2: Women and men managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) significantly from each other in at-home situations.
will differ
At work, particularly in management situations of similar stature and level, society no longer expects or wants different behavior or values from women and men. The demand for similar behavior suggests that social learning will occur to the extent that work values will be the same for women and men. Empirical evidence confirms the similarity of values among women and men managers (Boulgarides, 1984; Boulgarides and Rowe, 1983; Powell et al., 1984; Stevens, 1983), among women and men accountants (Kaufman and Fetters, 1980), and among black and white managers (Watson, 1974). Therefore, it was expected that: H-3: Women and men managers’ values (both terminal and instrumental) differ significantly from each other in the at-work situation.
will not
Method Subjects This study respondents
is based on information obtained voluntarily from 258 managerial (127 women and 131 men) employed in Southeastern Florida. Ten
328
J BUSN
RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir and B. Parker
full-time working MBA students received permission from their organizations to administer the instrument to their firm’s managers. When approached by their coworkers, 284 subjects voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, and 258 returned their questionnaires. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of management positions, it was necessary to administer the instruments at a number of different companies to obtain a sufficiently large number of female subjects. The subjects represented a variety of organizations in several industries and economic sectors including banking, insurance, travel, utilities, retail, freight, and government. The average respondent was 39 years of age and had spent 9 years with their present organization. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents designated themselves as low-level managers, 25% as middle-level managers, and 7.5% as top-level managers. Men and women were almost equally represented in both lower and middleto-upper-level groups. Almost two-thirds (64%) held a college or advanced degree; 24% had some college, and 12% had no education beyond high school. Sixty percent of respondents were married at the time of the survey, but 25% were previously married or currently separated. Only 18% were never married, and these were found mainly among respondents who were under 25 years of age. Most of the respondents live with a spouse, but 25% live alone or are single parents, 8% live with a significant other, and almost 7% live with a parent. Instrument An unsigned survey questionnaire administered on-site contained demographic information as well as the Value Survey Scale (Rokeach, 1968a) that was used to assess respondents’ hierarchical arrangement of instrumental and terminal values. As described by Rokeach, terminal values refer to preferable end states of existence; instrumental values refer to preferable modes of conduct, and the latter can be thought of as the mechanisms one uses to achieve terminal values or life goals. Using the VS, respondents rank-order the 18 alphabetically listed terminal values according to their relative importance to themselves. On another page, individuals similarly rank an alphabetical list of 18 instrumental values. The VS is selfadministered and takes from 10 to 30 minutes to complete. Test-retest reliabilities are reported in the 0.70s (Rokeach, 1973). Rokeach, believing that different forms of the same scale might be useful, developed several formats and versions of the VS, and found test-retest reliabilities in the 0.60s and 0.70s for each version (Rokeach, 1968a, 1973). This suggests that the VS is a robust instrument regardless of version used. Predictive validity was tested by comparing certain values with outside activities and behavior and/or by comparing one value with another. For this study, consistent with other changes made by Rokeach in the past, the VS was repeated twice. On one page respondents were asked to “consider the list of 18 values printed in alphabetical order. When you are working at your job, how well does each of the values describe what is most important to YOU?” Respon“1” in the space to indicate the most dents were instructed to place a number important value to them, a “2” to indicate the second most important value, and so on. Instrumental value ratings for the work situation also appeared. The following page used the same wording and directions, but asked respondents to rank order values according to When you are in your PERSONAL LIFE (outside of
Manager Values and Gender Differences
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
329
work), either at home or in social situations among friends or family,” both for terminal and instrumental values. One half of the questionnaires listed the work situation VS first followed by the personal situation VS, and the other half reversed the order. No significant response differences were found between the 2 forms of the questionnaire. Data Analyses The terminal and instrumental values were considered ordinal data and there was no assumption of an underlying normal distribution. Accordingly, nonparametric tests were used to examine all hypotheses. The Wilcoxon signed ranks matchedpairs program was used to test for differences between work and personal values within the male and female samples. Using this test, value rankings are summed and differences observed for responses, e.g., values assigned to freedom at work versus values assigned to freedom in personal life. The Mann-Whitney U was used to study differences between women and men managers’ values in the work or personal situation, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine differences between gender groups when controlling for age or management level. Results Hypothesis la predicted that women managers’ values would differ significantly between their work and personal situations. Hypothesis lb predicted the same thing for the men managers. Using the Wilcoxon signed ranks matched-pairs program to test the hypothesis, results shown in Table 1 indicate substantial support for both hypotheses. Rankings by both men and women managers in this study suggest that each gender holds different sets of values for their work and personal worlds. For the men, 15 of 18 terminal values and 12 of 18 instrumental values were ranked significantly different in their work and personal lives (see Table 1). With one exception (honesty), those values that stayed relatively the same in both situations were among the least important to the men. The top 5 terminal values for men managers at work-listed in sequence of importance-were: a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, happiness, family security, and freedom. The top 5 in their personal life were: family security, happiness, a comfortable life, self-respect, and love. The top 5 instrumental values for men managers at work were: responsible, capable, honest, ambitious, and independent, while the top 5 instrumental values for personal life were: loving, honest, responsible, cheerful, and broadminded. The significance of these differences is reflected in reported p value, but direction of difference is observed by looking at both rank and mean for each instrumental value. These show that where significant ranking differences occur for male managers, it is because many instrumental values are rated higher at work than in personal life, including ambitious, capable, independent, logical, and responsible. Men managers ranked only 3 instrumental values significantly higher in personal life than at work, and these were cheerful, forgiving, and loving. In fact, loving was ranked first as an instrumental value in personal life and last in its instrumental value to work life for men managers. For the women, 15 of 18 terminal values and 14 of 18 instrumental values were
330
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Table 1. Comparison
L. H. Chusmir of Rank and Mean Scores of Values
Between
Situations
Work Value Terminal values A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomp A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love National security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom Instrumental values Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled
Rank
Mean
6 8
(7.64) (8.90)
1: 18 11 4 5 3 10 16 17 13 15 2
,,‘::;:; (14.38) (9.36) (7.36) (7.40) (6.67) (8.95) (13.39) (13.67) (10.72) (13.36) (4.55)
1; 7
(1:::;; (7.70)
4 9
(6.03) (8.82)
1: 15 13 16 617
,e:;z; (11.35) (11.17) (12.43) (8.44)
1: 5 8
,rz; (8.34) (8.67)
617 18 17 12 1 10
(8.44) (14.91) (13.56) (10.50) (5.27) (9.12)
bv Gender
Women
Men (n = 131)
Mean
3 12 10 13 17 14 1 8 2 7 5 18 9 16 4 15 6 11
(6.48)“* (9.52)n.s. (9.29)*** (11.84)n.s. (13.66)* (11.98)*** (5.05)*** (5.50)* (5.08)*** (7.80)*** (7.40)*** (14.22)** (9.00)*** (12.73)** (7.35)*** (12.66)*** (7.78)*** (9.36)n.s.
12 5 8 4 11 16 6 7 2 17 9 14 15 1 18 13 3 10
(10.19)*** (8.54)n.s. (9.40)*** (7.93)*** (9.95)** (10.91)n.s. (8.95)*** (9.16)n.s. (5.47)n.s. (11.84)*** (9.63)* (10.69)*** (10.81)*** (5.44)*** (14.88)*” (10.27)n.s. (6.35)** (9.65)n.s.
(n = 127)
Work
Personal Rank
and B. Parker
Rank
Mean
Personal Rank
4 14 10 12 17 13 1 7 2 5 9 18 11 15 3 16 6 8
(6.86)** (11.69)n.s. (9.41)*** (10.46)n.s. (13.54)* (11.41)*** (4.80)*** (8.19)* (5.42)** (7.05)*** (8.98)*** (13.87)** (10.39)** (12.13)*’ (6.43)** (13.11)*** (8.13)*** (8.44)n.s.
9 7 6 8 12 11 5 10 2 17 4 14 15 3 18 16 1 13
(9.49)*** (9.24)n.s. (8.72)*** (9.37)*** (9.79)*** (9.71)* (8.29)*** (9.60)* (5.50)* (12.89)*** (7.64)n.s. (10.84)*** (10.85)*** (6.67)*** (15.00)*** (10.92)n.s. (5.48)n.s. (10.04)*
1; ,r;:;i;
18 415 8 415 3
(14.28) (7.15) (8.53) (7.15) (6.68)
1: 15 14 17 1 10 11 6
(s:::,; (12.94) (11.32) (13.32) (4.83) (9.16) (9.63) (7.72)
3 9
(5.66) (8.75)
1: 15 12 16 6
,r:::;; (11.68) (10.85) (12.20) (8.39)
1: 5 8
(!z:; (7.62) (8.80)
1; 17 13 1 10
,r::::; (13.65) (11.22) (4.96) (9.12)
Mean
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant significantly different in their work and personal lives (see Table 1). All 3 not-significantly-different terminal values and 2 of 4 not-significantly-different instrumental values were ranked by the women among the least important in both situations. The remaining 2 instrumental values not ranked significantly different (responsible and independent), however, were important in both situations for the women. Responsible was listed first by the women managers in both situations, and independent was ranked fifth most important at work, and fourth most important in personal life. The top 5 terminal values for female managers at work ranked
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Manager Values and Gender Differences Table 2. Comparison
of Rank and Mean Scores of Values within Situations by Gender” Work
Personal
Men
Value
Rank
Women
Mean
Rank
(9.36)
12 13 4/s
Terminal values An exciting life A world at peace Equality Mature love Pleasure Self-respect Instrumental values Cheerful Courageous Honest Independent
331
11
3
(5.78)
Mean (10.85)*** (11.16)* (7.15)***
4
“Only those values with significant differences within situations * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p i 0.001; n.s. = not significant.
Women
Men Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
12 13
(9.52) (11.84)
14 12
(11.69)** (10.46)*
5 9 4
(7.40) (9.00) (7.35)
9 11 3
(8.98)** (10.39)** (6.43)*
4 16
(7.93) (10.91)
8 11
(9.37)** (9.71)”
9
(9.63)
4
(7.64)**
(6.92)”
are listed.
were: self-respect, accomplishment, happiness, equality, and freedom. The top 5 in their personal life were: family security, happiness, self-respect, a comfortable life, and inner harmony. The top 5 instrumental values for women managers at work were: responsible, capable, ambitious, honest, and independent, while the top 5 instrumental values for personal life were: responsible, honest, loving, independent, and forgiving. Hypothesis 2 predicted that women and men managers’ values would differ from each other in personal situations. To test this hypothesis, the Mann-Whitney U was used to investigate differences in how women and men managers rate personal values. Results shown in Table 2 only partially confirm the hypothesis. Five significant differences were observed for terminal values of men and women managers in their personal lives, but only 3 significant differences in instrumental values. In the terminal value category, men managers placed higher values on an exciting life, on mature love, and on pleasure in their personal lives than did women managers, whereas women managers placed significantly higher value on a world at peace and on self-respect in their personal lives than did women managers. In the instrumental value category, men managers placed higher values on being cheerful, whereas women managers placed significantly higher value on being courageous and independent. Hypothesis 3 predicted that women and men managers’ values would not differ from each other in work situations. Results of Mann-Whitney U tests show that of the 36 terminal and instrumental values, 32 were not significantly different (see Table 2), essentially confirming Hypothesis 3. In the terminal value category, men managers placed higher values at work in an exciting life, whereas women managers were significantly more likely to rate both a world at peace and equality as more important than their men colleagues. In the only instrumental value difference, men placed more importance on being honest than did the women, although both ranked this mode of conduct very high (third and fourth, respectively). Possible effects of age or management level on work and personal values were
332
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir and B. Parker
examined with Kruskal-Wallis tests, and the results of each test are consistent with those reported above for each of the 3 hypotheses. For example, women at every managerial level rank equality as significantly more important to them at work than do men at comparable levels (H = 14.8; p < O.O'l).
Discussion Women and men managers reported strikingly similar work values, but personal value rankings (both terminal and instrumental) showed substantial differences. Moreover, it was found that both genders ranked values quite differently in their work and home lives, suggesting that people may have dual hierarchies of values: one for work life and one for home life. The study also found different value patterns in women and men managers’ work and personal lives, suggesting that the dual hierarchy varies according to gender. This duality of preferred modes of conduct (values) for both men and women managers lends additional support to social learning theory, which suggests that the situation is a better predictor of behavior than personality (or biological sex). At work organizations have assigned both genders the same managerial role, and executives’ values appear to be quite similar. In their personal situations, women and men managers’ assigned roles are not necessarily similar even though they are both in the at-home or personal situation. Society assigns women and men different social roles within the context of their personal lives. Since the personal roles are different, it is unsurprising that their sets of values differ as well. Because values help to shape current behavior as well as future attitudes (England, 1967; Huismans and Kosc, 1982; Rokeach, 1968a), the similarity in this study’s women and men managers’ values at work suggests that the 2 executive subgroups may not differ in work behavior as much as predicted by some management writers. As a result, the 2 subgroups may complement and strengthen -each other, adding a synergistic effect within the management team. Work values may be more important to organizations than personal values, but understanding the differences between the 2 may aid organizations to lessen traditional barriers between work and home life, and to reduce role conflict, both of which are known to negatively impact organization outcomes. Also, understanding managers’ work and personal values can develop a greater awareness of and sensitivity to the needs of the management team. Often, differences in values important in employees’ personal lives can exacerbate conflict at work between individuals despite the similarity in work values (Brunson, 1985). For that reason, knowing how women and men managers differ in this area can alert organizational change agents to this potential problem. One implication of these finding? is that testing of values for social science research, clinical, or organizational purposes should identify the specific environment rather than an overall, more universal approach. Both women and men managers in this study did not have a single value system descriptive of both home and work environments. Persons in any role or situation are likely to adopt a set of values or mode of conduct congruent with that role or situation. Questionnaires, therefore, which measure values but do not specify the environment, could be misleading. If future research confirms the duality of Rokeach’s’s Value Survey, teachers, managers, and trainers might be well-advised to avoid the trap of ster-
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Manager Values and Gender Differences
eotyping women and/or men according to commonly accepted bromides or myths of gender role behavior and beliefs. If specific terminal or instrumental values are relevant to the performance of a particular job, value testing might be more effective if it limits itself to the work situation. Whether people possess more than the 2 value systems (work and personal life) or if there are multiple modes of conduct, different for any situation in which women and men find themselves, are not identified in this study. Social learning theorists would argue that individuals possess many more than 2 because they tend to occupy many different roles in life in addition to the broadly based work and personal roles. On the other hand, highly work-committed people who identify themselves through their work may not be able to separate their work and personal roles and therefore may possess only one hierarchy of values. Another unanswered question is that even though values may be different in managers’ work and personal lives, is one set stronger or more important than the other? Future research is indicated to answer all these related questions. Subjects in the present study were all American managers and therefore their values are based on American culture. Cross-cultural studies might show sharply different results and might add to our knowledge of values held by men and women in each of the 2 situations. The study used a narrow geographic area as well as a sample of convenience, limiting the generalizability of the results. Further study is indicated, perhaps using a national, randomly selected sample. References Allport, G. W., Vernon, P., and Lindzey, G., Study of Values (rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1960. Bartolome, F., and Evans, P. A. L., Professional Lives versus Private Lives-Shifting Patterns of Organizational Commitment. Organizational Dynamics 7 (Spring 1979): 329. Bern, S. L., and Lenney, E., Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (1976): 634-643.
Beutell, N. J., and Brenner,
0. C., Sex Differences in Work Values. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 28 (1986): 29-41.
Bhushan, A., Values across Sex and Family-Vocations.
Journal of Psychological Researches
23 (1979): 11-16.
Boulgarides,
J. D., A Comparison
of Male and Female Business Managers.
Leadership
&
Organization Development Journal 5 (1984): 27-31.
Boulgarides,
J. D., and Rowe, A. J., Success Patterns
for Women
Managers.
Business
Forum 8 (1983): 22-24.
Brunson, R. W., Personal Values and Their Relationship to Organizational Effectiveness: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Southern Management Association, College Station, TX: Southern Management Association, 1973. Brunson, R. W., A Top Management Personal Values Typology: Inverted Factor Analysis Approach to a Conglomorate. Group & Organization Studies 10 (1985): 118-134. Chusmir, L. H., and Koberg, C. S. Development and Validation of the Sex Role Conflict Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22 (1986): 397-409. DeVito, A. J., Carlson, J. F., and Krau;, J., Values in Relation to Career Orientation, Gender,
England,
and Each Other.
Counseling and Values 28 (1984): 202, 206.
G. W., Organizational
Goals and Expected
Academy of Management Journal 10 (1967): 107-117.
Behavior
of American
Managers.
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
L. H. Chusmir
England, G. W., Managers and their Value Systems: A Five-Country Columbia Journal of World Business (Summer 1978): 35-44.
and B. Parker
Comparative
Study.
England, G. W., and Lee, R., The Relationship between Managerial Success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 411-419. Feather, N. T., Masculinity, Femininity, Psychological Androgyny, and the Structure Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (1984): 6044620. Gilligan,
C., In a Different Voice. Harvard
Holland, J. L., A Theory (1959): 35-45.
of Occupational
University Choice.
Press,
Cambridge,
of
MA. 1982.
Journal of Counseling
Holland, J. L., A Psychological Classification Scheme for Vocations Journal of Counseling Psychology 13 (1966): 278-288.
Psychology 6
and Major
Fields.
Huismans, S. E., and Kosc, Z. J., The Value of “Equality” as a Predictor of Attitudes, Intentions, Behaviors and Value Hierarchization. Studia Psychologiczne 20 (1982): 49-57. Kaufman, D., and Fetters, M. L., Work Motivation and Job Values among Professional Men and Women: A New Accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior 17 (1980): 251262. Learned, E. P., and Katz, R. L., Personal Review 37 (1959): 111-120.
Values and Business
Harvard Business
Decisions.
Linder, F., and Bauer, D., Perception of Values among Male and Female Students. Perceptual and Motor Skills 56 (1983): 59-63. Mahoney, J., An Analysis of the Axiological Structures of Traditional Men and Women. Journal of Psychology 90 (1975): 31-39. Mahoney, J., Heretick, D. M., and Katz, Sex Roles 5 (1979): 311-318. Maslow,
A. H. (Ed.),
McClelland, Mischel,
G. M., Gender
Specificity
New Knowledge in Human Values. Harper
D. C., Human Motivation. Scott-Foresman.
and Proliberation in Value Structures.
& Row, New York.
Glenview,
W., Personality and Assessment. John Wiley, New York.
Munson, J. M., and Posner, B. Z., Concurrent Validation Predicting Job Classification and Success for Organizational Psychology 65 (1980): 536-542.
Undergraduate
1959.
IL. 1985. 1968.
of True Value Inventories in Personnel. Journal of Applied
Myers, I. B., and McCaulley, M. H., Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. 1985. Parish, T. S., Rosenblatt, R. R., and Kappes, B. M., The Relationship between Human Values and Moral Judgment. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior 16 (1979-1980): l-5. Parsons, T., Suggestions for a Sociological Approach Administrative Science Quarterly 1 (1956): 63-68.
to the Theory
of Organizations
Pirnot, K., and Dustin, R., A New Look at Value Priorities for Homemakers Women. Journal of Counseling and Development 64 (1986): 432-436. Powell, G. N., Posner, B. Z., and Schmidt, Human Relations 37 (1984): 909-921.
W. H., Sex Effects on Managerial
I.
and Career
Value Systems.
Robinson, J. P., and Shaver, P. R., Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 1978. Rokeach,
M., Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. Free Press,
Rokeach, M., A Theory of Organization of Social Issues 24 (1968b): 13-33. Rokeach,
New York.
1968a.
and Change within Value-Attitude
M., The Nature of Human Values. Free Press,
Rotter, J. B., Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. NJ. 19.54.
New York. Prentice-Hall,
Systems. Journal
1973. Englewood
Cliffs,
Manager
Values
and Gender
J BUSN RES 1991:23:325-335
Differences
Ryan, E. J., Watson, J. G., and Williams, J., The Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success of Female and Male Managers. Journal ofPsychology 108 (1981): 67-72. Stevens, G. E., The Personal Business Ethics of Male and Female Managers: A Comparative Study. Paper presented at 43rd annual meeting of Academy of Management, August 1417, Dallas, TX, 1983, Mississippi State, Mississippi, Academy of Management. Tobacyk, J., Sex Differences in Predictability of Self-Disclosure minal Values. Psychological Reports 44 (1979): 985-986.
for Instrumental
and Ter-
Watson, J. G., An Analysis of the Self-Concept, Personal Values, and Levels of Achievement Motivation of Black and White Managers. Dissertation Abstracts International 35 (1974): 2480-2481. Watson, J. G., and Williams, J., Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success of Black and White Managers. Academy of Management Journal 21 (1977): 313319. Watson, J. G., and Ryan, E. J., A Comparative Study of the Personal and Male Managers. Journal of Psychology 102 (1979): 307-316.
Values
of Female
Watson, J. G., and Simpson, L. R., A Comparative Study of Owner-Manager Personal Values in Black and White Small Businesses. Academy of Management Journal 21 (1978): 313-319. Whitely, W., and England, G. W., Variability in Common Due to Value Orientation and Country Differences. 77-78.
Dimensions of Managerial Values Personnel Psychology 33 (1980):
Yankelovich, D. New Rules in American Life: Searching for Self-Fulfillment Turned Upside Down. Psychology Today (April 1981): 35-91.
in a World