Gender and job attitudes: a re-examination and extension

Parbudyal Singh Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

The authors
Parbudyal Singh is Assistant Professor of Human Resources Management at York University, Toronto, Canada. Dale Finn is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut, USA. Laurel Goulet is an Associate Professor in the Leadership and Management Department at the US Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut, USA.

Job attitudes have attracted academic and practitioner attention for a number of reasons, including empirical ndings suggesting that such attitudes have important organizational consequences, including effects on turnover, effort expenditure and productivity (Blau, 1989; McNeily and Goldsmith, 1991; Somers and Birnbaum, 1998). Job attitudes take many forms including work commitment and job satisfaction. The work commitment constellation may be further broken down into four key attitudes: (1) career commitment; (2) work ethic; (3) job involvement; and (4) organizational commitment (Morrow, 1993). Since these variables are crucial to an organizations success, it is important that research be conducted on their antecedents, as well as interrelationships (Morrow, 1993). This importance takes on a new dimension as women enter the workforce in increasing numbers. In 1998, there were about 64 million women in the US workforce, representing an increase of approximately 178 percent since 1960. Women now constitute about 46 percent of the labor force, up from 42 percent only two decades ago. Furthermore, it is projected that the womens labor force participation rate will increase to 62 percent in 2008, up from 50 percent in 1978 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000). Even though many studies have found no differences in job attitudes by gender (Aven et al., 1993; Hamilton, 1993; Smith et al., 1998; Stuart, 1992) and that women may even be more committed to their work and careers, among other job attitudes (Matthieu and Zajec, 1990; Wahn, 1998), there are perceptions that men and women have different job attitudes (Schwartz, 1989) and a few empirical studies have reported such attitudinal differences (Kaldenberg et al., 1995; Smith et al., 1969). As Lefkowitz (1994, p. 325) argues:
. . .these observed differences appear to conrm the implicit assumption that womens reactions are indeed different from those of men as a consequence of some unspecied psychobiological factors or of differential sex-role socialization . . . moreover, it seems pertinent to note the rather invidious nature of the above comparisons: all of them cast women as less well-adapted to life, as less competitive and less career-oriented, and thus, by inference, as less effective at work than men.

Keywords
Gender, Employee attitudes, Job satisfaction

Abstract
Job attitudes, such as work commitment and job satisfaction, have attracted academic and practitioner attention for a number of reasons. Previous research indicates that such attitudes have important organizational consequences, such as turnover, effort expenditure, and productivity. Earlier ndings indicate that men and women have different attitudes towards their jobs. In this study, using a sample of 228 employees, the effects of gender on job attitudes was investigated. The results suggest support for the job model or structuralist perspective; that is, women and men have similar job attitudes once we control for work-related and other variables.

Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm

As a result of these perceptions, and the fact that the research evidence is less than conclusive, including two meta-analysis with different conclusions (Aven et al., 1993; Matthieu and
Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 pp. 345-355 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 0964-9425 DOI 10.1108/09649420410563403

Received: October 2003 Revised; June 2004 Accepted: June 2004

345

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

Zajec, 1990), it is important to conduct additional research using different data sets and methods. Furthermore, as Eagly (1987) contends, gender differences in research must be reported completely and precisely, even if there are no signicant differences, and that null ndings, if obtained consistently across studies, would help establish that women and men are similar in many respects (Eagly, 1987, p. 756). There is a relatively large body of literature on the differences in job attitudes between men and women; however, most of the research has focused on a single job attitude variable, such as job satisfaction (deVaus and McAllister, 1991; McNeily and Goldsmith, 1991; Smith et al., 1998) and organizational commitment (Aven et al., 1993; Wahn, 1998), with a few examining a limited number of these variables together (Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Lefkowitz, 1994; Kaldenberg et al., 1995; Korabik and Rosen, 1995; Scandura and Lankau, 1997). In this study, we re-examine the gender effects on several of these job attitudes and extend the literature to include a few variables not generally included, such as career commitment and work ethic. Furthermore, several demographic and work-related variables are included as controls. In sum, a large number of relevant variables allows for an identication of covariates and spurious effects, thus leading to a better interpretation of the unique effects of gender on job attitudes. Thus, the main objectives of this paper are to re-examine the effects of gender on traditionally measured job attitudes, and to extend the literature to include other variables, controlling for demographic and job-related factors.

Theoretical background and research evidence

The differences in job attitudes between men and women have been studied for decades (see, for example, Deaux, 1984; Lefkowitz, 1994; Powell and Graves, 2003; Rosener, 1009) but the issue continues to attract attention in both the academic and popular media (Allen et al., 1994; Aven et al., 1993; Baird et al., 1998; Burke, 1999; Lefkowitz, 1994; Marsden et al., 1993; Niles, 1999; Rozier, 1996; Smith et al., 1998). This attention corresponds with the increased participation rate of women in the work force, and the belief, at times, that there are attitudinal differences across gender (e.g. Konrad et al., 2000; Lefkowitz, 1994; Schwartz, 1989). In this study, we use two competing perspectives to analyze this issue, namely, the job model and the gender model (for a review of these perspectives, see Aven et al., 1993; Loscocco, 1990), sometimes referred to as the

structuralist and socialization perspectives, respectively (Mannheim, 1983; Smith et al., 1998). The job model suggests that when women perform in the same organizational settings as their male counterparts, their attitudes are shaped by the same factors, and that there should be no signicant differences across the two groups (Kanter, 1977; Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996). Proponents of this view contend that women and men form job attitudes in similar ways and the only basis for gender differences in job attitudes is located in the organizational experiences and positions of women and men (Kanter, 1977). That is, from a job model perspective, differences in job attitudes are viewed as being attributable to differences in the jobs themselves and are thus inuenced by such factors as job status and job tenure (Loscocco, 1990); thus, situational factors may inuence job attitudes. This implies that once situational factors are similar, gender differences, if any, should disappear. From a gender model perspective, it is contended that gender-related differences in job attitudes represent true psychological differences resulting from early socialization of males and females (Ritzer, 1972; Rosener, 1990), and by socially determined gender roles (Eagly et al., 2000). It is contended that women establish their identity through their interdependent, nurturing relationships and place primary emphasis on extrawork variables, such as caring for dependents; thus, women view their jobs as less central and this inuences their attitudes toward the job. That is, gender differences in job attitudes are personcentered and will continue to exist even if situational factors are held constant. We address several job attitudes in this paper: career commitment, job involvement, work ethic, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. As the section below shows, some empirical evidence suggests support for the job model perspective, some for the gender model perspective, and some supports neither. Gender and career commitment Career commitment may be dened as ones attitude towards ones profession or vocation (Blau, 1985, p. 278). In essence, career commitment involves the development of personal career goals and an identication with and involvement with those goals (Collarelli and Bishop, 1990). Employees who are willing to exert energy and be determined in pursuing personal career goals may be considered to have high levels of career commitment. The overall empirical evidence on career commitment is sparse; consequently, there is a paucity of research that focuses directly on the

346

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

gender effects on career commitment. In a relatively early study of MBA students, Powell and Posner (1989) found that men were more committed to their careers than women were; however, the gender effect was largely explained by individuals sex-role identity. More recent studies have found no signicant differences by gender. Rozier (1996) found that male and female nurse executives have similar job attitudes, including career commitment, with male nurse executives adopting female attitudes in the predominantly female profession. Similarly, Rozier and Hersh-Cochran (1996) found that male and female managers in a traditionally female profession (physical therapy) did not differ on overall career commitment but it is important to note that men score higher in the evaluation of the importance of work over personal and family concerns and women scored higher on planning their careers . . . perhaps women must constantly plan farther ahead (Rozier and Hersh-Cochran, 1996, p. 63). Wolfgang (1995), in a study of pharmacists, reported that career commitment did not differ signicantly by gender, a nding similar to that of Katz (1986) in her study of university students. Other studies report the gender effects in research that principally explores other issues, and the results suggest that males and females are not statistically different in their career commitment (Beauvais and Cooper, 1991; Kaldenberg et al., 1995). In general, these latter ndings lend support to the job model. Gender and job involvement The importance of the job in an individuals life and the degree to which he/she identies with the job are both integral parts of the job involvement construct (Brown, 1996; Paullay et al., 1994; Dubin, 1956). Over time, researchers have identied parallel aspects of this construct as important, such as the degree of psychological involvement with ones work and the belief of an individual in a specic jobs goals and activities (Blau, 1989; Scott and McClellan, 1990). Job involvement, as viewed in this study, may also be conceptualized to include such attributes as the job being central to ones existence, the individual being very personally involved in his/her job, and the importance of the job to ones self-image (Brown, 1996; Kanungo, 1982). The empirical results on the gender-job involvement relationship are mixed. However, most of the studies report no signicant differences in male and females samples, usually after controlling for job conditions (Elloy et al., 1991; Knoop, 1986; Lambert, 1991). For instance, Elloy et al. (1991) reported that situational characteristics and outcome variables displayed

comparable amounts of common variance with job involvement and considerably more than do demographic factors, including gender. Lambert (1991) found that, after controlling for job conditions, women and men reported comparable levels of job involvement (and job satisfaction). Beauvais and Cooper (1991) also found no support for gender differences in job involvement, contrary to their expectations. Furthermore, Sekaran (1989) reported that gender had no effect on the moderating inuences of self-esteem and a sense of competence on the relationship between job involvement and job satisfaction. An early study (Lorence, 1987) even reported that women were more involved in their jobs, after controlling for work autonomy. However, Korabik and Rosen (1995) reported that women with children scored lower on job involvement, after controlling for other work-related and demographic variables, suggesting that extra-work variables may have an impact on job attitudes. Thus, there is no clear-cut support for either the job or gender model, even though the evidence generally supports the former. Gender and work ethic The work ethic variable, often termed the Protestant work ethic endorsement, has an established track record in the literature (see for example, Furnham, 1990, 1991; McCortney and Engels, 2003; Niles, 1999). It is commonly regarded as ones belief in the importance of hard work and frugality (Morrow, 1993) and industriousness (Wayne, 1989). The principal implications of the work ethic concept are that working hard and exerting effort on workrelated activities are good. Furthermore, one is obligated to perform assigned tasks to the best of ones ability and must do what is necessary (within moral bounds) to get the job done. There is little empirical research on the genderProtestant work ethic (PWE) relationship. In a relatively early study, Powell et al. (1985), though not using the PWE per se, found that women scored higher on several work ethic variables including a willingness to work long hours. In another study, King and Miles (1994) incorporated the PWE into an equity sensitivity instrument, and reported that their results suggest that equity sensitivity scores cannot readily be accounted for by the gender variable (King and Miles, 1994, p. 139), a nding that does not refute the job model. Gender and organizational commitment From an attitudinal perspective, organizational commitment is treated as an attitude regarding the nature of the relationship between an employee and an organization (Oliver, 1990; Meyer and

347

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1979). At the core of the attitudinal approach, the individual is portrayed as having three dimensions of commitment: a belief in the organizations mission, a desire to remain with the organization, and a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization. The empirical evidence on the differences in organizational commitment by gender is mixed. One set of studies reports greater organizational commitment by men (Arana et al., 1986; Baird et al., 1998; Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Kaldenberg et al., 1995). However, in some of these studies, the bivariate results lose their signicance once job-related factors are entered as controls (Arana et al., 1986; Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996). Nevertheless, there are studies that report greater organizational commitment by men, even after controlling for job-related factors (Kaldenberg et al., 1995). Another set of studies, including a meta-analysis (Matthieu and Zajec, 1990), reports greater commitment by women, a nding consistent with several subsequent individual studies (Marsden et al., 1993; Wahn, 1998). A third set of studies (Bielby and Bielby, 1989; Bruning and Snyder, 1983; Fry and Greenfeld, 1980; Koberg and Chusmir, 1989), including another meta-analysis (Aven et al., 1993), report no sex differences in organizational commitment especially after controlling for jobrelated variables, again with supportive evidence from individual studies conducted subsequently (Allen et al., 1994; Aryee et al., 1998; Ngo and Tsang, 1998; Korabik and Rosen, 1995; Siguaw and Honeycutt, 1995). Finally, Powell (1999) reports that men and women have similar levels of organizational commitment. Thus, there is evidently no clear-cut support for either the job or gender model.

disappeared since 1974 (Tait et al., 1989). These latter studies may lend support to the job model. Other variables In this study, a number of variables are considered along with the job attitudes variables. Some of these are demographic (age, education, marital status, number of dependents) and others are more job-related (tenure in company, tenure in position, job status exempt versus non-exempt, and job t). By considering these variables simultaneously, spurious effects are minimized, and the most potent differences, by gender, are identied. Research question As the above review of the literature demonstrates, the empirical evidence on the effects of gender on job attitudes is mixed. In some instances, the evidence is very sparse. Furthermore, the theoretical perspectives predict divergent results. The key research question is what are the effects of gender on job attitudes, taking into consideration work-related and demographic variables?

Method
Procedures and sample During the initial steps of this research project, 25 employees were interviewed about issues related to the study. Their responses, together with questions previously used in reliable and valid instruments, were used to develop a survey (a copy of the survey can be obtained from the rst author). For the next phase of the project, 51 companies were randomly selected from a list of large companies featured in the yellow pages of a large city in Northeast USA. Through intensive mail and telephone follow-up initiatives, 18 agreed to participate in the study. A total of 375 surveys were distributed to employees in several for-prot (nancial services and insurance) and non-prot organizations (mental health and health care), and a state agency in Northeast USA, with 228 usable surveys returned (61 percent response rate). All respondents were white collar professionals. The mean age of the respondents was 38 years old; 38 percent were male (86) and 61 percent female (138). Of those married (74 percent), 88 percent (148) had spouses who also were employed. Of the sample, 64 percent had at least four years of college education. Respondents had been employed full time for an average of 17 years, ten of which were with their current employers. Approximately 36 percent (77) of the respondents

Gender and job satisfaction Job satisfaction may be dened as the degree to which employees like their work (Agho et al., 1992), or an employees positive feelings toward his/her job (Dormann and Zapf, 2001; Smith et al., 1969). A number of early studies reported that female employees are less satised with their jobs than their male counterparts (Smith et al., 1969). However, more recent research has found little evidence linking job satisfaction to the employees gender, especially if other demographic and workrelated variables are considered (Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Lambert, 1991; Kaldenberg et al., 1995; Lefkowitz, 1994; Russ and McNeilly, 1995; Siguaw and Honeycutt, 1995; Smith et al., 1998). In fact, one meta-analysis contends that gender differences in job satisfaction have

348

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

were non-exempt, and 64 percent (137) were exempt employees (exempt employees have supervisory responsibilities and are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act). On average, respondents had less than one dependent. Measures Gender Respondents responded directly to the questionnaire prompt on gender (male or female). Males were coded 1 and females 2. Job attitude variables Career commitment As in previous studies (Aryee and Tan, 1992; McGinnis and Morrow, 1990; Blau, 1989), career commitment was measured utilizing Blaus (1985) instrument. This measure has sound psychometric properties and is highly recommended for use in work commitment research (Morrow, 1993). Responses on the seven-item instrument were recorded on a ve-point scale, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The alpha reliability for this study was 0.82. Job involvement Kanungos (1982) measure of job involvement was used. This nine-item measure has been reported to have good reliability and validity (Blau, 1985; Morrow, 1993). In this study, the instrument had an alpha reliability of 0.86. Work ethic Mirels and Garretts (1971) 19-item Protestant work ethic (PWE) measure was used to measure respondents belief in the importance of hard work and frugality (Cook et al., 1981). As Morrow (1993, pp. 7-8) notes, the PWE is a well-known conceptualization and measure, with an established track record of use in the organizational behavior and psychological literature and that despite some of its limitations it is difcult not to endorse a measure like PWE which has such a long history of use (Morrow, 1993, p. 9). In this study, the PWE had an alpha reliability of 0.76. Organizational commitment As in previous studies (Meyer et al., 1989; Siguaw and Honeycutt, 1995), the 15-item Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) was used to measure organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974). The OCQ assesses the magnitude of ones identication with and investment in an organization. The OCQ has recorded consistent high reliability (e.g. Mannheim, 1983) and in this study the alpha reliability was 0.91.

Job satisfaction Fourteen items measuring job satisfaction from Hackman and Oldhams (1974) Job Diagnostic Survey were used. The authors reported a reliability of 0.76 in their original study. The alpha for the current study was 0.88. Other variables Number of dependents and other demographic variables Number of dependents was measured using a continuous variable as per respondents answer to the survey question: How many dependents do you have? Employees were specically asked to write a zero if there were no dependents. Other demographic variables were: age, marital status, and education. Job-t and other job-related variables Job-t was measured using the survey item: How well related is this job to your career aspirations? (Responses were not at all related, somewhat related, and very related; other job-related variables were job status (exempt versus nonexempt), tenure in position, and tenure in organization. Analyses Results of the survey were rst analyzed using descriptive statistics and reliability analysis. The research question was explored using correlations and regression analyses. The correlations were used to test relevant inter-relationships. However, these univariate results are not generally very robust, thus it was necessary to use hierarchical regression analyses to assess the unique effects of gender. First, the job-related and demographic variables (other than gender) were entered and the effects measured on each job attitude. Gender was then entered and its unique effects assessed.

Results
As Table I shows, for the job attitude variables, gender is positively related at a signicant level only with organizational commitment (p , 0:05). That is, women display higher levels of organizational commitment. Women also have less education and and are less likely to hold exempttype jobs. Table II shows the effects of gender and other demographic and job-related variables on career commitment, job involvement, work ethic, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. As shown, gender is signicant only for organizational commitment (b 0:14; p , 0:05). That is, women are more committed to their

349

Table I Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Gender and job attitudes

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

Mean

SD

350

1. Gender 2. CC 3. JI 4. WE 5. OC 6. JS 7. Age 8. Educ 9. MS 10. Dep. 11. OT 12. JT 13. JobSt 14. Job Fit 0.57*** 14* 55*** 51*** 2 11 31*** 2 03 00 2 08 2 10 38*** 50*** 19** 39*** 36*** 2 11 19** 11* 2 01 2 02 2 07 21*** 37*** 27*** 13 01 2 15* 2 18* 17** 2 04 2 04 2 12 2 01 59*** 2 15* 2 01 2 02 2 09 2 10 2 14* 06 30*** 2 02 07 2 01 2 12 01 2 02 17* 30*** 2 30*** 05 03 58*** 40*** 2 02 00 04 2 04 2 26*** 2 22*** 44*** 14* 2 30*** 06 2 01 2 04 2 05

1.62 3.18 2.98 4.32 4.81 5.07 39.97 4.57 1.26 0.84 9.59 5.00 1.64 2.42

0.49 0.77 0.90 0.67 1.11 0.94 10.22 1.33 0.44 1.07 8.08 4.83 0.48 0.76

2 03 0.01 2 02 17* 08 2 02 2 30*** 03 2 06 02 2 02 2 22*** 2 02

08 13 2 01 2 03

50*** 2 08 2 09

2 12 2 11

20***

Women in Management Review

Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001. CC = career commitment (measured with seven items, alpha reliability = 0.82); JI = job involvement (nine items, alpha = 0.86); WE = work ethic (19 items, alpha = 0.76); OC = organizational commitment (15 items, alpha = 0.91); JS = job satisfaction (14 items, alpha = 0.88); Educ = education; MS = marital status; Dep. = Number of dependents; OT = organizational tenure; JT = job tenure; JobSt = job status; n = 218-228

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

Table II Hierarchical regression results Career commitment (n = 196) 2 0.02 2 0.09 2 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.25*** 0.18*** 0.40*** 13.02*** 0.36 0.33 0.09 11.74*** 0.36 0.33 Job involvement (n = 203) 0.03 2 0.12 0.16* 0.14 2 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.30*** 5.30*** 0.18 0.15 0.02 4.67*** 0.18 0.14 Work ethic (n = 197) 0.12 03 2 0.10 2 0.03 2 0.08 2 0.10 2 0.06 0.01 1.28 0.05 0.01 2 0.13 1.48 0.07 0.02 Organizational commitment (n = 195) 2 0.12 2 0.12 2 0.05 03 2 0.04 00 2 0.04 0.30*** 3.30*** 0.12 0.09 0.14* 3.40*** 0.14 0.10 Job satisfaction (n201) 2 0.18* 2 0.06 2 0.07 13 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.24*** 3.25** 0.12 0.08 0.10 3.08** 0.13 0.08

Variables

Demographic and job-related variables (1st stage) Number of dependents Age Marital status Tenure in company Tenure in position Job status Education Job t F-value R-square Adjusted R-square Gender added (2nd stage) Gender F-value R-square Adjusted R-square
Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001

organizations even after controlling for other demographic and relevant job-related variables. However, the effect size for job t is larger (b 0:30; p , 0:01). No other variables are signicant. For career commitment, job t, education, and job status are signicant. Job involvement is predicted by job t and marital status. No variable is statistically signicant (at p , 0:05 or less) for work ethic; for job satisfaction, only number of dependents and job t are signicant.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, our main objective was to assess the differences, if any, between the job attitudes of men and women, taking into consideration job-related and demographic variables. As the correlation results show, there are signicant differences on only one job attitudinal variable, namely, organizational commitment. These results are replicated in the hierarchical regressions. That is, women are more committed to their organizations even after controlling for job-related and demographic variables. Thus, for four of the job attitudes, gender is not a signicant predictor; these results support the job model which posits that there are no inherent differences in the job attitudes of men and women; rather, these differences, may be explained by their experiences in the organization. Interestingly, it is generally assumed that women would exhibit lower levels of job attitudes.

However, in this research, women reported higher levels of organizational commitment. In a study of gender and continuance commitment, Wahn (1998) suggests that women may have higher organizational commitment because they perceive fewer job alternatives than their male counterparts. That is, if women believe that they have fewer opportunities for employment in other organizations, they will have higher levels of commitment to their current organizations than do men. It should be noted that in all the regressions, other factors, especially job t, are more relevant than gender in explaining the job attitudes, lending support to the job model. That is, it seems as if employees whose jobs t their career aspirations are more committed and more satised, and that this factor plays a dominant role in shaping overall job attitudes. This study has both theoretical and practical importance, and contributes to the literature in several ways. Theoretically, this study adds further insights into the interrelationships among the job attitudes variables, in line with Morrows (1993) call for such research. Previous research has already established the discriminant validity for the work commitment and other attitudinal variables (Morrow, 1993), and this study adds to this body of literature. While the job attitude variables have moderately high inter-correlations, the regression analyses show that the antecedents are different. With respect to the effects of gender on job attitudes, this study adds to the literature in the following ways. First, demographic variables are retained as controls, namely, age, marital status,

351

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

number of dependents, and education. Furthermore, several work-related variables are included in the analyses: tenure in the company, tenure in the position, work status, and job t. Second, unlike most of the previous research that focused on one or two job attitudes, we investigated a large number of job attitudes, some of which have not been the focus of prior research. Furthermore, we use established instruments with high levels of reported reliability; these reliability results are replicated in this study. This study also has practical importance in that it helps to refute stereotypical beliefs that women have lower levels of commitment to their organizations and contradicts the gender model. This implies that once women are given opportunities equal to those of men in organizations, their commitment and other outcome variables may be the same, or even better. There are several practical implications of these results. Rather than focus solely on gender and gender-related variables, organizational leaders should examine job-related and organizational factors to ensure that they do not act as barriers to the full commitment of women at work. As Kanter (1977) argues, there are several barriers that affect womens contribution to organizations and their lack of success in breaking the glass-ceiling. These structural and systemic barriers include lack of power and opportunity, lack of mentors and sponsors, and a male-oriented, male-dominated corporate culture. The perception that women have lower levels of organizational commitment, work ethic and other job attitudes helps to reinforce these barriers. Thus, organizations need to implement an integrative approach to change perceptions, remove barriers and adopt progressive human resource practices that improve job attitudes for women and men, alike. Organizational members need to be aware that, contrary to stereotypes, women do not have lower commitment levels and less desirable job attitudes than men. This awareness must come through an education and training process initiated by top management (Catalyst, 1998). Furthermore, organizational leaders must go beyond the mere acceptance of this empirical nding and implement policies that would enhance womens movement to the executive suite thereby establishing role models for others. This cannot be realized through tokenism, which is detrimental to womens advancement in organizations (Oakley, 2000). Tokens may result in isolation or exclusion from occasions in which informal socialization and political activity take place, thus creating social barriers. Instead, organization leaders should actively strive to enhance the social networks, both formal and informal, of women through

appropriate sponsorships and mentorships, among other initiatives (Ragins et al., 1998). Furthermore, traditional organizational cultures and structures may be working to reinforce stereotypes and perceptions of women as not fully committed to the organization. Traditional organizations emphasize competition, dominance, aggressive management approaches, rationality and impersonal relationships, and a step-by-step career progress through the organizations hierarchy. This has led to calls for a remodeling of the workplace along less hierarchical, more female lines (Saltzman, 1991). New or re-invented organizations would be characterized by atter structures, employee empowerment, and interactive leadership. There are also several human resource management initiatives that can be taken to enhance the job attitudes of both women and men. As this study reveals, job t may be a signicant predictor of work commitment and job satisfaction. The job t nding is similar to Posners (1992) results that job t or personorganization values congruency was directly related to positive work attitudes and that gender (and other demographic variables) did not moderate this relationship. These ndings imply that organizations may benet from hiring for t and from the redesign of jobs. That is, employers should hire people who demonstrate attributes that match the culture of the organization, a practice that has been employed by several successful companies, including Southwest Airlines (Bowen et al., 1991; Freiberg and Freiberg, 1996; Powell, 1999). As Bowen et al. (1991) argue, organizational success in a rapidly changing environment requires hiring employees who t the overall organization, not those who t a xed set of task demands. Employees personalities must t the management philosophy and values that help dene the organizations uniqueness and its tness for the future (Bowen et al., 1991, p. 51). Essentially, a potential employees career goals, as well as his/her personality, should be considered, especially during interviews. For employees already working with the organization, organizational leaders should re-design jobs and work systems to make them amenable to the strengths of the employees. Job and work system re-design may include job enlargement, job enrichment, and the use of appropriate teams (Nahavandi and Aranda, 1994). Finally, organizations should also encourage and implement appropriate mechanisms to channel more women into line jobs. Line management jobs are generally considered more desirable than staff jobs since they offer more varied career opportunity. Yet, there is a tendency

352

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

to place women into staff positions, where their presence is more acceptable (Kanter, 1977). This reinforces perceptions of lower work commitment. In a study conducted by Catalyst (1998), a nonprot research organization, 47 percent of the executive women and 82 percent of the CEOs surveyed named lack of line experience as a major barrier to womens advancement. A possible limitation in this study is common method bias resulting from the use of a single questionnaire to investigate relatively similar concepts. However, this is unlikely to be a serious problem since method bias is not generally an issue when, as in this study, well-developed, psychometrically sound instruments are used (Spector, 1987). There are a number of avenues open for future research. First, researchers may want to use longitudinal designs, ideally with a cohort-type sample, to test job attitudes over time, as possible predictor variables change. Second, other jobrelated variables, such as the attitudes of organizational leaders, male and female, and the availability of mentors, among others, may be investigated for their effects in moderating the gender-job attitudes relationships. Third, other life roles and their potential inuence on the genderjob attitude relationship may be explored; for example, future research may focus on the mediating inuence of non-work roles, such as volunteering, service in charitable organizations, family involvement, and so on. Finally, as this and other research suggest, many of the job attitude variables, though separate constructs, have relatively high inter-correlations; thus, an exciting possibility for future research would be to investigate whether there is an underlying personality variable, such as conscientiousness, that may subsume these attitudinal variables.

References
Agho, A., Price, J. and Mueller, C. (1992), Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity, Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 185-96. Allen, T., Russell, J. and Rush, M. (1994), The effects of gender and leave of absence on attributions for high performance, perceived organizational commitment, and allocation of organizational rewards, Sex Roles, Vol. 31, pp. 443-64. Arana, N., Kushnir, T. and Valency, A. (1986), Organizational commitment in a male-dominated profession, Human Relations, Vol. 39, pp. 433-48. Aryee, S. and Tan, K. (1992), Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 288-305. Aryee, S., Luk, V. and Stone, R. (1998), Family responsive variables and retention-relevant outcomes among employed parents, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 73-87.

Aven, F., Parker, B. and McEvoy, G. (1993), Gender and attitudinal commitment to organizations: a metaanalysis, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 26, pp. 49-61. Baird, J., Zelin, R. and Marxen, D. (1998), Gender differences in the job attitudes of accountants, Mid-American Journal of Business, Vol. 13, pp. 35-42. Beauvais, I. and Cooper, E. (1991), The impact of personal status variables and role involvement on job, career, and organizational commitments, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, pp. 338-41. Bielby, W. and Bielby, D. (1989), Family ties: balancing commitments to work and family in dual career households, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, p. 74. Blau, G. (1985), The measurement and prediction of career commitment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 277-88. Blau, G. (1989), Testing the generalizability of a career commitment measure and its impact on employee turnover, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 88-103. Bowen, D., Ledford, G. and Nathan, B. (1991), Hiring for the organization, not the job, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 35-51. Brown, S.P. (1996), A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120, pp. 235-55. Bruning, N. and Snyder, R. (1983), Sex and position as predictors of organizational commitment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 485-91. Burke, R. (1999), Workaholism in organizations: gender differences, Sex Roles, Vol. 41, pp. 333-45. Catalyst (1998), Advancing Women in Business: The Catalyst Guide, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY. Collarelli, S. and Bishop, R. (1990), Career commitment: functions, correlates and management, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 158-76. Cook, J., Hepworth, S., Wall, T. and Warr, P. (1981), The Experience of Work: A Compendium and Review of 249 Measures and Their Use, Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Deaux, K. (1984), From individual differences to social categories: an analysis of a decades research on gender, American Psychologist, Vol. 39, pp. 105-16. deVaus, D. and McAllister, I. (1991), Gender and work orientation: values and satisfaction in Western Europe, Work and Occupations, Vol. 18, pp. 72-93. Dodd-McCue, D. and Wright, G. (1996), Men, women, and attitudinal commitment: the effects of workplace experiences and socialization, Human Relations, Vol. 49, pp. 1065-91. Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. (2001), Job satisfaction: a metaanalysis of stabilities, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 483-97. Dubin, R. (1956), Industrial workers worlds: a study of the central interests of industrial workers, Social Problems, Vol. 3, pp. 131-42. Eagly, A. (1987), Reporting sex differences, American Psychologist, Vol. 42, pp. 756-7. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. and Diekman, A.B. (2000), Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal, in Eckes, T. and Trautner, H.M. (Eds), The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Elloy, D., Everett, J. and Flynn, R. (1991), An examination of the correlates of job involvement, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 16, pp. 160-78.

353

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

Freiberg, K. and Freiberg, J. (1996), NUTS! Southwest Airlines Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success, Bard Press, Inc., Austin, TX. Fry, L. and Greenfeld, S. (1980), An examination between attitudinal differences between policewomen and policemen, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 123-6. Furnham, A. (1990), A content, correlational, and factor analytic study of seven questionnaire measures of the protestant work ethic, Human Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 383-99. Furnham, A. (1991), The protestant work ethic in Barbados, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 131, pp. 29-43. Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1974), Development of the job diagnostic survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 159-70. Hamilton, P. (1993), Running in place, Dun and Bradstreet Reports, Vol. 42, pp. 24-7. Kaldenberg, D., Becker, B. and Zvonkovic, A. (1995), Work and commitment among young professionals: a study of male and female dentists, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 1355-77. Kanter, R. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY. Kanungo, R. (1982), Work Alienation: An Integrative Approach, Praeger, New York, NY. Katz, M. (1986), Career and family values for males and females, College Student Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 66-76. King, W. and Miles, E. (1994), The measurement of equity sensitivity, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 133-42. Knoop, R. (1986), Job involvement: an elusive concept, Psychological Reports, Vol. 59, pp. 451-6. Koberg, C. and Chusmir, L. (1989), Relationship between sex role conict and work-related variables: gender and hierarchical differences, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 129, pp. 779-91. Konrad, A.M., Corrigall, E., Lieb, P. and Ritchie, J.E. (2000), Sex differences in job attribute preferences among managers and business students, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 25, pp. 108-32. Korabik, K. and Rosen, H. (1995), The impact of children on women managers career behavior and organizational commitment, Human Resource Management, Vol. 34, pp. 513-28. Lambert, S. (1991), The combined effects of job and family characteristics on the job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation of men and women workers, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 341-63. Lefkowitz, J. (1994), Sex-related differences in job attitudes and dispositional variables: now you see them, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 323-49. Lorence, J. (1987), A test of gender and job models of sex differences in job involvement, Social Forces, Vol. 66, pp. 121-42. Loscocco, K. (1990), Reactions to blue-collar work, Work and Occupations, Vol. 17, pp. 152-78. McCortney, A.L. and Engels, D.W. (2003), Revisiting the work ethic in America, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp. 132-7. McGinnis, S. and Morrow, P. (1990), Job attitudes among fulltime and part-time employees, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 82-96. McNeily, K. and Goldsmith, R. (1991), The moderating effects of gender and performance on job satisfaction and intentions to leave in the sales force, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp. 219-32.

Mannheim, B. (1983), Male and female industrial workers: job satisfaction, work role centrality and work place preference, Work and Occupations, Vol. 10, pp. 413-36. Marsden, P., Kalleberg, A. and Cook, C. (1993), Gender differences in organizational commitment: inuences of work positions and family roles, Work and Occupations, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 368-90. Matthieu, J. and Zajec, D. (1990), A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 171-94. Meyer, J., Paunonen, S., Gellatly, I., Gofn, R. and Jackson, D. (1989), Organizational commitment and job satisfaction: its the nature of the commitment that counts, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 152-6. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mirels, H. and Garett, J. (1971), Protestant ethic as a personality variable, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 40-4. Morrow, P. (1993), The Theory and Measurement of Work Commitment, JIA Press, Greenwich, CT. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), The measurement of organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 92-111. Nahavandi, A. and Aranda, E. (1994), Restructuring teams for the re-engineered organization, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8, pp. 58-68. Ngo, H. and Tsang, A. (1998), Employment practices and organizational commitment: differential effects for men and women?, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 251-66. Niles, F. (1999), Toward a cross-cultural understanding of workrelated beliefs, Human Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 855-67. Oakley, J. (2000), Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27, pp. 321-4. Oliver, N. (1990), Rewards, investments, alternatives and organizational commitment: empirical evidence and theoretical development, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 19-31. Paullay, I.M., Alliger, G.M. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (1994), Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 224-8. Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974), Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9. Posner, B. (1992), Person-organization values congruence: no support for individual differences as a moderating inuence, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 351-62. Powell, G.N. (1999), Handbook of Gender and Work, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Powell, G.N. and Graves, L.M. (2003), Women and Men in Management, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Powell, G. and Posner, B. (1989), Commitment to career versus family/home life: effects of sex, sex-role identity, and family status, Psychological Reports, Vol. 64, pp. 695-8. Powell, G., Posner, B. and Schmidt, W. (1985), Women: The more committed managers?, Management Review, June, pp. 43-5. Ragins, B., Townsend, B. and Mattis, M. (1998), Gender gap in the executive suite, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-42.

354

Gender and job attitudes

Women in Management Review Volume 19 Number 7 2004 345-355

Parbudyal Singh, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet

Ritzer, G. (1972), Man and His Work: Conict and Change, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY. Rosener, J. (1990), Ways women lead, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 120-5. Rozier, C. (1996), Nurse executive characteristics: gender differences, Nursing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 33-7. Rozier, C. and Hersh-Cochran, M. (1996), Gender differences in managerial characteristics in a female-dominated health profession, The Health Care Supervisor, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 57-65. Russ, F. and McNeilly, K. (1995), Links among satisfaction, commitment and turnover intentions: the moderating effect of experience, gender and performance, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34, pp. 57-65. Saltzman, A. (1991), Trouble at the top, US News and World Report, 17 June, pp. 40-8. Scandura, T. and Lankau, M. (1997), Relationships of gender, family responsibility and exible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 377-91. Schwartz, F. (1989), Management women and the new facts life, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, pp. 65-76. Scott, K. and McClellan, E. (1990), Gender differences in absenteeism, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 19, pp. 229-53. Sekaran, U. (1989), Understanding the dynamics of selfconcept of members in dual-career families, Human Relations, Vol. 42, pp. 97-119. Siguaw, J. and Honeycutt, E. (1995), An examination of gender differences in selling behaviors and job attitudes, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 24, pp. 45-52. Smith, P., Kendall, L. and Hulin, C. (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Rand McNally & Co., Chicago, IL. Smith, P., Smits, S. and Hoy, F. (1998), Employee work attitudes: the subtle inuence of gender, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 649-66.

Somers, M. and Birnbaum, D. (1998), Work-related commitment and job performance: its also the nature of performance that counts, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 621-34. Spector, P. (1987), Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: myth or signicant probem, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 438-43. Stuart, P. (1992), What does the glass ceiling cost you?, Personnel Journal, November, pp. 70-9. Tait, M., Padgett, M. and Baldwin, T. (1989), Job and life satisfaction: a reevaluation of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 502-7. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000), Employment Projections, available at: http://stats.bls.gov/ Wahn, J. (1998), Sex differences in the continuance component of organizational commitment, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23, pp. 256-66. Wolfgang, A. (1995), Job stress, coworker social support, and career commitment: a comparison of female and male pharmacists, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 10, pp. 149-60. Wayne, F. (1989), An instrument to measure adherence to Protestant ethic and contemporary work values, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8, pp. 793-804.

Further reading
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1997), Process and outcome: gender differences in the assessment of justice, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 83-98.

355