Page 2
It also seemed to help if the woman in a blue-collar job maintained a friendly and cooperative attitude despite the taunts and harrassments she was subjected to by her working associates. Women who did not exhibit these types of behavior were not likely to be seen as performing well or to be accepted by their male working associates. Very often a supervisor of blue-collar employees in describing a particular woman who did not survive in a blue-collar job, cited behavior which indicated the lack of a positive attitude toward work as such.
• According to popular stereotypes about women, we should expect them to be dependent, passive, and without a strong achievement or work orientation. These stereotypes were not verified by descriptions of the target women's approaches to their jobs. An index of sex-role orientation constructed for a large sample of the target women from descriptions of their on-the-job behaviors indicated that more than half the women exhibited both sterotypically "feminine" and "masculine" behaviors. Therefore, these women might best be classified as "androgynous" in their approaches to their jobs.
• Since about half the white-collar women interviewed were in some kind of supervisory or managerial position, many of the types of approaches or behaviors described that were thought to contribute to effectiveness referred to supervisory style. Among the often- mentioned behaviors were: "avoids using autocratic approach,"" uses a participative approach," "treats people as individuals," and is helpful and considerate of subordinates."
It was interesting to note that the women themselves and their subordinates tended to emphasize approaches that were consistent with a participative or non-directive leadership style, while managers were somewhat more likely to see firm, aggressive, and directive behavior as factors in the success of the female supervisors. Taking all of the evidence together, it appears that the effective female leader feels that she must strike a balance between directive and participative styles. She must be firm and assertive enough to command the respect and attention of her subordinates, peers and superiors, leaving no doubt in their minds that she is in charge and knows what she is doing. On the other hand, she may feel that she must avoid being as directive and authoritarian as a comparable male supervisor might be, because of the possibility that male workers will resist an overly-aggressive female supervisor.
• An impressive finding with regard to leadership practices of white-collar women was the degree to which they seemed to be acting in accordance with generally-accepted criteria of leadership excellence. The women themselves, their managers, peers and subordinates, all mentioned such desirable behaviors as 'uses a participative approach, treats subordinates as individuals-is sensitive to individual differences," "very helpful and considerate of subordinates," "delegates responsibility," "makes a special effort to be fair," "gives subordinates more information than do most other managers, "involves subordinates in decisions," "more tactful and diplomatic than are most managers, helps subordinates develop their capabilities," and "uses a constructive rather than a punitive approach to motivate subordinates."
Several factors may account for the prevalence of these desirable leadership behaviors among the female managers. In the first place, most of the target women were selected for these positions with great care. As a general rule, several wellqualified candidates were available, since most organizations have very able women already working in jobs which do not fully utilize their talents.
A second factor that may account for the prevalence of desirable leadership characteristics among the female managers is that many of these traits are typically associated with "femininity." Studies have generally shown that women, as compared with men, are likely to be more sensitive, tactful, helpful, considerate, diplomatic, and more human-relations than task-oriented. These same traits have been shown consistently to characterize effective leaders. 7/
1/ I. J. Badin, "Some Moderator Influences on Relationships between consideration, Initiating Structure, and Organizational Criteria," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59(3), pp. 386–382; E. Day and R. Stodgill, "Leadership Behavior of Male and Female Supervisors: A Comparative Study," Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, pp. 353-360; D. McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967; John B. Miner, "Student Attitudes Toward Bureaucratic Role Prescriptions and Prospects for Managerial Talent Shortages, Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27, pp. 605-613.
A third factor which could account for desirable leadership qualities in the female managers was that these approaches were learned by trial and error. Many of the women testified that when they behaved in a directive, authoritarian manner, they found that their subordinates resisted or carried out assignments with little or no enthusiasm. On the other hand, when the manager used a "participative" leadership style, she observed a much more enthusiastic response from subordinates. Since the women felt highly visible in their non-traditional roles, and highly motivated to succeed, this learning process was greatly accelerated.
TURNOVER AMONG BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN
• While women who were chosen for professional and managerial jobs were carefully screened and evaluated, often in competition with comparably-qualified males, blue-collar women were often recruited or persuaded to apply for traditionally-male jobs. In situations of this kind, the dropout rate among the women who did attempt the blue-collar jobs was likely to be very high. For example, in one of the companies, over 40 women had been placed in a particular blue-collar job and only one had survived at the time this study was conducted.
• Companies which attempted to screen female applicants for blue collar positions and to inform them of the characteristics of the jobs tended to meet with less turnover. However, the total number of women in blue-collar jobs in those companies may have been lower than in companies concerned simply with meeting EEO goals.
• Efforts to move women into formerly all-male blue-collar jobs were not entirely unsuccessful by any means, however. The
COMPONENTS OF SUCCESSFUL EEO PROGRAMS
The internal publicity given to the EEO effort and the determination of the company to achieve EEO goals undoubtedly helped to create positive attitudes toward the program. Very often these programs entailed an intensive communications effort with supervisors and managers. The supervisors were then expected to
lay the groundwork in their respective units for the introduction of women into traditionally-male jobs. The attitudes of the supervisors themselves seemed particularly critical in determining the success of integration efforts, especially in blue-collar jobs.
Another approach used as an aid in achieving EEO_goals was to provide women with information about new job opportunities. Some of this was done with written materials; in other cases, a company might sponsor an annual "career day" during which intensive efforts were made to provide women with information about the various types of jobs available to them.
• The integration of women into formerly all-male jobs at blue-collar levels was also facilitated by providing women with special training which would help to put them on a equal footing with men. Training directors frequently reported that their training programs for craft jobs assumed that all of the trainees had mechanical interests and experience. Therefore, terminology like "open-end wrench," "hex nut," or "right-hand thread," was used without considering that many women were unfamiliar with such terms and were therefore likely to be at a decided disadvantage in the training. To remedy this, specially focused pre-training was given to some women candidates for craft jobs to "bring them up to speed" with the male trainees. Programs of this kind not only reduced the failure rate of women significantly, but also increased the likelihood that the women would be accepted by their working associates when they were put on the job.
• Special efforts to facilitate the acceptance of women were much less likely to be necessary at white-collar levels. In fact, some companies made it a point to avoid any special treatment, but simply began to include qualified white-collar women along with men in short-' and long-range career development programs. Other companies did introduce special programs to help insure that women placed in certain white collar jobs would be successful. For example, several firms used "assessment center" programs especially designed for female candidates for supervisory positions. A few companies also provided such specialized training as courses in "assertiveness" for women who were candidates for supervisory positions. (However, this was certainly the exception rather than the rule.) In companies where such special training was provided, managers often expressed doubts regarding its necessity, since they found the success rate among women in formerly-male managerial positions to be remarkably high.
PROBLEMS ANTICIPATED ON THE BASIS OF PAST RESEARCH
Persistent and pervasive stereotypes exist in our culture regarding appropriate sex-role behavior. Women are often assumed to be no more than intermittent members of the work force--that is, their traditional roles as housewives and mothers are thought to place limitations on their time, interest, or opportunity in pursuing careeroriented jobs. On the other hand, current statistics indicate that 90 percent of girls now in high school will spend a minimum of 25 years working outside the home. 8/
Many studies have shown that it is typical in our culture to consider women having characteristics unsuitable for traditionallymale jobs. In one study, for example, men were judged by respondents to be generally more independent, objective, competitive, logical, skilled in business, and able to make decisions with greater ease than On the other hand, women were perceived as more dependent, passive, and illogical than men. Other studies showed that women were seen as limited in toughness, stability, creativity, and judgment, or as less achievement and work-oriented than men. 9/
Still other findings indicate that a woman with interests typically associated with "masculinity" is more likely to be seen as competent than a woman with stereotypically "feminine" interests. On the other hand, a woman portrayed as competent and "feminine" was judged by members of both sexes to be more socially attractive and
8/ v. O'Leary, "Some Attitudinal Barriers to Occupational Aspirations in Women," Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, pp. 809-826; R. E. Dutton, "Sex as a Factor in Occupational Choice, Personnel Journal, 1967, 46(8), pp. 510-513; V. E. Schein, "The Relationship between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 51, pp. 95-100.
9/ I. K. Broverman, et al., "Sex-role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal," Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, pp. 59–78; E. A. Cecil et al., "Perceived Importance of Selected Variables Used to Evaluate Male and Female Job Applicants," Personnel Psychology, 1973, 26, pp. 397-404; B. Rosen and T. H. Jerdee, "Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite," Harvard Business Review, 1974, 52(2), pp. 45–48; J. Crowley et al., "Seven Deadly Half-Truths About Women," Psychology Today, March 1973, pp. 94-96; D. McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill) 1967. Page 3
attractive as a work partner than a competent "masculine" female. When judged from the standpoint of a prospective employer, however, the competent woman with so-called "masculine" traits was preferred. In fact, just being seen as competent has been shown to be associated with lack of femininity.107 Such findings would seem to present a conflict situation for the woman who would like to be seen as competent in important occupational roles and at the same time retain desirable traits usually associated with femininity.
Stereotypic attitudes about women in our culture could certainly be expected to result in discrimination in selecting managers. Schein, for example, found in a survey of 300 managers that successful managers are perceived to possess characteristics, attitudes, and temperaments more commonly ascribed to men than to women. 11/
Webber found that women were generally not seen as leaders even when they outnumbered men in a group by a three-to-one ratio. He composed work groups of students in a Master of Business Administration program, some groups containing three men and one woman, while others had three women and one man. When a lone woman was on a work team, her contributions were usually seen as insignificant by her male peers. And in fact these lone women usually did not participate in the writing of the final group report, which was the ultimate team product. Even in three groups out of 62 where the woman claimed to have emerged as the leader, most of the men did not agree. In work groups with three women and one man, the lone males all saw themselves as leaders. In these groups, some women saw the lone males as exercising disproportionate influence; others saw the men as relatively insignificant in influence.12 /
10/ J. T. Spence and R. Helmreich, "Who Likes Competent Women?" , Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 2, pp. 197–213; D. R. Shaffer and c. Wegley, "Success orientation and sex-role congruence as determinants of the attractiveness of competent women, Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, pp. 586-600; B. S. Piacente, et al., "Evaluation of the Performance of Experimenters as a Function of Their Sex and Competence," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, pp. 321-329. ,
11/ Schein, op. cit. 12/ M. A. Millette, "Women Fade to Background in Group Study," The Sunday Bulletin, January 18, 1976, p. 30. p
FEMALE PREJUDICES AGAINST WOMEN
Stereotypic attitudes which downgrade the capabilities of women in traditionally-male jobs are not by any means held exclusively by Much research has shown that women frequently hold negative views of their own worth in relation to the worth of men, especially with regard to professional or administrative jobs. Goldberg, for example, found that women valued the professional worth of men more highly than that of women. Pheterson similarly found that most women, when confronted with another woman who was trying to succeed in some endeavor, automatically tended to assume that the woman was less motivated, less expert, or simply less favored than a comparable man. Other researchers report that women generally hold negative attitudes toward the idea that women should be in professional and managerial positions. 13/
Megargee found that even women who scored high in "dominance" tended to defer to men who scored very low in "dominance" when decisions were required as to who should be the leader of a two-person mixed-sex group. In this situation, only 20 percent of the women assumed the leadership role of such two-person groups. It was interesting to note that the high-dominance woman made the decision as to who would be the leader 91 percent of the time; however, in the great majority of cases (80 percent), they assigned the leadership role to the male. It was assumed that these women were experiencing a conflict between their dominant personality trait and the socially-accepted role of women as the passive sex. 141
Horner has identified this conflict between dominant and socially accepted sex-roles in women as "the motive to avoid success. Using a modified version of the Thematic Apperception Test, she found that women, as compared with men, were significantly more likely to report "fear of success" imagery. She also found that both men and women tended to characterize successful women as unattractive, masculine, and somehow abnormal. Horner theorized that these sex-role stereotypes may induce women to fear social rejection or have concerns about their normality and femininity when they strive for success in a competitive situation.15/
13/ G. I. Pheterson, et al., "Evaluations of the Performance of
14/ E. I. Megargee, "Influence of Sex Roles on the Manifestation of Leadership," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53(5), pp. 377–382.
15 M. S. Horner, "Femininity and Successful Achievement: A Basic Inconsistency," Feminine Personality and Conflict (Belmont: California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company) 1970.
Schwart considers these stereotyped self-concepts of women to be a psychological barrier to the successful integration of women into management jobs. She sees the need for women to conceive of themselves in terms of their own careers instead of those of their husbands and to become aware of the options open to them. By accepting stereotypic attitudes, women have become their own worst enemies in terms of job mobility and satisfaction. 16/
Projected shortages of managerial talent would also argue for the need to modify stereotypic attitudes about the suitability of women in managerial positions. It is the consensus of experts in manpower planning that there will be a critical shortage of qualified individuals for middle- and upper-management positions in the 1980's. Untapped female resources are seen by many experts as a natural solution to this problem. 171 Moreover, increasing numbers of women today are welleducated, ambitious, and eager to seek the satisfaction that achievement in a career can bring.
EXPERIENCE MAY CHANGE ATTITUDES
Many of the stereotypic attitudes which would indicate that women are handicapped in performing traditionally-male jobs will undoubtedly be altered as people gain experience with women in such jobs. Lynch conducted an intensive study of 95 women who held high level professional and managerial positions and concluded that, for these individuals, the traditional view that women have characteristics that make them unsuitable for high level positions proved to be mostly fallacious. 18/
Fox and Steinmann found that professional and college women perceive no conflict between femininity and achievement activity; rather, their ideal was a balance between self-oriented achievement behavior and other-oriented (family) behavior.19/
16/ E. B. Schwartz, "Psychological Barriers to Increased Employment of Women," Issues in Industrial Society, 1971, 2, pp. 69-73.
17/ John B. Miner, op. cit.
18/ Edith M. Lynch, The Executive Suite-Feminine Style (New York: Amacom), 1973.
19/ D. J. Fox and A. Steinmann, "Male-Female Sex Role in the United States," in R. K. Unger and F. L. Denmark (Eds.), Women: Dependent or Independent Variable? (New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc.), 1975. Similarly, a University of Michigan study showed that a number of commonly-held beliefs proved to be more mythical than factual; they included the following assumptions: (1) women would not work if they did not absolutely have to for economic reasons; (2) women are more satisfied than men with intellectually-undemanding jobs; (3) women are less concerned than men with getting ahead on the job; and (4) women are less concerned than men with obtaining selfactualizing work. 20/
Many employers believe that it does not pay to train or promote women, especially in professional or managerial positions, because they will marry, leave the company, and the investment will be lost. Again, however, facts do not always support such beliefs. A largescale study conducted by the Aetna Life Insurance Company in 1973 showed that women in technical, supervisory and managerial positions turned-over at the rate of 8.5 percent a year, while men in comparable jobs turned-over at a 9 percent rate. Absence rates were found to be almost identical for men and women, which is also consistent with national trends. 21/
Gaudreau makes a strong case for the contention that a substantial proportion of the studies attributing handicaps to women in the work force show an inadequate research design. For example, many of the reported differences between men and women in attitudes toward work could very well reflect a failure to control for differences in job and education levels. She cites a number of studies in which job and/or education level were controlled, and which found no sex differences in attitudes or job-related behaviors. In other cases, she points out that surveys have asked respondents to describe the characteristics of
20/ Crowley, Levitin and Quinn, op. cit.
21/ Career, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Winter, 1973 issue.
a typical male, a typical female, or a typical manager, rather than a specific individual. As a result, she contends that such surveys will invariably yield stereotypic attitudes rather than observations based on experience. 22/
CHANGING CONCEPTS
Another factor which may be expected to contribute to women's increased interest and success in traditionally-male jobs is gradual change in sex-role stereotypes. Stein and Bailey point out that women may adjust their concepts of femininity to include some masculine patterns and thus pursue a non-traditional career. Bardwick predicts that role conflict in women may decrease as a new female pattern emerges in which interpersonal and traditional behaviors remain important while achievement and success become equally significant. 23/
Alper's work with achievement motivation would seem to support Bardwick's prediction. Alper found that need for achievement in highly competent, bright, intellectual women followed the pattern established for men. There was a significant correlation between sex-role orientation and achievement motivation. Women with more traditional attitudes toward sex roles told more fear-of-success stories than women with non-traditional attitudes. 24/
22/ P. Gaudreau, "Investigation of sex differences across job levels," Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, 1975; R. J. Burke, "Differences in perception of desired job characteristics of the opposite sex," The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 109, pp. 127-135; R. Centers and D. Bugental, "Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, pp. 193–197; S. Salch and M. Lalljee, "Sex and job orientation," Personnel Psychology, 1969, 32, pp. 465-471. .
231 A. J. Stein and M. M. Bailey, "The Socialization of achievement orientation in females," Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, pp. 345–366; T. W. Bardwick and E. Douvan, "Ambivalence: the socialization of women," in v. Gornick and B. K. Moran (Eds.), Women in Sexist Society (New York: Basic Books, Inc.), 1971, pp. 147-159.
24/ T. G. Alper, "The relationship between role orientation and achievement orientation," Journal of Personality, 1973, 41(1), pp. 9–31. Page 4
A current formulation that sheds further light on changing sex role stereotypes is Bem's proposition that there is a group of people who describe themselves by choosing "masculine" and "feminine" adjectives in relatively equal degrees. She calls these people "androgyonous. According to Bem, some women are capable of seeing themselves as both "feminine" and "masculine," or both emotional and competitive, affectionate and agressive, etc. In fact, she has shown that androgynous individuals may be more psychologically-healthy, in that they have more available behaviors to choose from in responding appropriately to different situations. 25/
SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Obviously, the past research regarding women in male-oriented work roles leaves a number of questions unanswered, largely because our society has not had a great deal of experience with women in jobs that were held almost exclusively by males in the past. Some of these unanswered questions are:
(1) How pervasive are traditional attitudes regarding a "woman's place?"
Do women as well as men hold these attitudes?
(2) How do women react to leadership roles?
Do they find such roles pleasant or unpleasant?
(3) Do men view women as generally unsuited for traditionally-male jobs?
Are women in such jobs seen as a threat to the men?
(4) How do women feel about working for a female supervisor?
(5) Is there any evidence of "fear of success" in women who hold traditionally-male jobs?
25) s. L. Bem, "The measurement of psychological androgyny,' Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162.
(6) Are the majority of women in managerial positions single, as compared to women in lower level positions?
(7) How do people view competent women?
Are they accepted in the same way that competent men are?
(8) Are typically "feminine" traits regarded as handicapping or advantageous for a woman in a male-oriented position?"
(9) What is the general attitude among women about females being promoted to management positions?
(10) Do women in management positions have certain characteristics that distinguish them from men in management positions?
For example, are they more kind, considerate, and concerned , with people than are men?
(11) Will women who approach the job in a predominantly "masculine" or "feminine" style--or a combination of the two approaches-be more successful in management positions?
Are "masculine" characteristics necessary for success in
Not all of these questions will be answered in this study in a clearcut and unequivocal manner. However, we hope to shed enough light on the answers to facilitate the progress of public and private sector employers in providing equal opportunities for women in the world of work.
EXPERIENCE OF THE TARGET WOMEN
CHARACTERISTICS OF
Of the 164 women interviewed, 91 were in white-collar positions and 73 in blue-collar positions. About half, or 45, of the whitecollar positions were supervisory or managerial in nature, and the remaining 46 were professional or staff positions that did not entail supervising others. In the blue-collar category, the majority of the jobs involved craft work where the individual was paid an hourly wage. However, not all fit that category. For example, some of the jobs classified here as blue-collar involved work performed in an office setting, such as drafting, or monitoring dials and gauges 26/
The distribution of interviews with both white-collar and bluecollar women was reasonably well balanced between the two interviewers. Specifically, the male interviewer conducted 58 percent of the total interviews, 57 percent of the interviews with women in white-collar jobs, and 60 percent of the women in blue-collar jobs.
The women interviewed held a wide variety of jobs. This seemed especially true for women in blue-collar jobs, some of whose job-titles
Power plant operator Meter reader Coin Collector Testman Garage attendant Truck driver Mechanic Repairman Field draftsman Electronic troubleshooter Estimate assigner Local tester
Central office repairman Equipment technician Warehouse supplyman Building service aide Laborer Engineering technician Handiman Draftsman Conveyor operator General utility mechanic Installer Production man
26 Actually, it is more appropriate to distinguish between the two types of jobs as being "exempt" or "non-exempt." This terminology refers, of course, to whether or not the job is exempt from provisions of wagehour laws. All of the jobs classified here as "white-collar" would be in the exempt category, and all jobs classified as "blue-collar" are nonexempt in their official classifications. However, it seemed to us that it would be easier to follow the narrative in this description of study results if these two classifications were referred to as white-collar vs. blue-collar, rather than exempt and non-exempt.
White-collar job titles were also many and varied. Here, however, the titles did not always connote very well the actual responsibilities involved in the respective jobs; a modest-sounding title could be used for a job that entailed a great deal of responsibility, and vice versa. Moreover, the same job title had different meanings in different companies. The title "District Manager" in one company, for example, might have been used only for very high-level positions which involved the supervision, directly or indirectly, of several hundred people, while the same title in another company might have been used for a job which entailed much less responsibility.
The levels of the traditionally-male jobs held by women varied from professional specialists or technicians to company officers. Their distribution was pyramidal, with the great majority falling in the lower ranks of management positions and relatively few at the highest levels. Some of the specific jobs held by the women in white-collar positions
Engineer Staff attorney Credit manager District office manager Sales manager Plant service manager Education administrator Expediter Marketing supervisor Systems analyst Power plant engineer Outside plant foreman Reliability engineer Personnel coordinator Security agent Maintenance foreman Legislative agent
Nuclear support specialist Financial accountant Plant chemist Labor relations specialist Customer service manager Network manager-local Foreman-repair services Employment representative Telecommunication manager Director of office services Metallurgical tester Accounting supervisor Training administratorSupervisor of engineers Quality control manager Public office manager Senior tax accountant
Demographic Characteristics
The ages of the women varied widely from under 20 to almost retirement age (Chart A).21 As might be expected, the women in whitecollar positions tended to be older than those in blue-collar positions.
27/ In all of the tables and charts in this report, the raw numbers of cases are entered, rather than percentages. This was done to emphasize that the respective sample studied is the universe under consideration. The authors felt that the use of percentages might connote that the respective samples were intended to be representative of some larger universes or populations of women, or of managers, peers, or subordinates. Page 5
Regarding the educational attainment of the women interviewed, there was also a decided difference between the two groups, with the women in the white-collar positions having completed significantly higher levels of education (Chart B).
Since there were significantly more women under 25 years of age in the blue-collar jobs, we might expect to find fewer of them married. Taking this into account, it does seem that there are fewer married women than might have been expected in the white-collar group:
However, approximately two-thirds of the single white-collar women
The length of time that the women had held their present jobs prior to the study is shown below:
Here it can be seen that the women in blue-collar jobs had longer average tenure than women in white-collar jobs--a finding that is somewhat unexpected in view of the fact that most of the companies reported significantly less success in retaining women in the bluecollar than in the white-collar jobs. The difference could be accounted for by the fact that some of the women in white-collar jobs had first moved into a traditionally-male job some time ago, and then had been promoted only recently into their present jobs. (This phenomenon seemed to be encountered much less often in the interviews with the women in blue-collar jobs.) It is also possible that the companies started to take action in integrating blue-collar jobs before those in the white-collar category. 28/
ATTITUDES TOWARD
Early in the interviews, the target women were asked how they liked their new jobs, and what aspects they either liked or disliked. As might be expected, there was a decided difference between the women in white-collar vs. blue-collar jobs: Blue White- Total collar collar
Women in the white-collar jobs were much more likely to express strong liking for the job than were women in blue-collar positions. On the other hand, even among the blue-collar women, there were relatively few who expressed dislike for their work. Almost 75 percent said they liked their jobs either "fairly well," or "very much.'
28/ There are other possible explanations for the longer tenure of women in blue-collar jobs. For one thing, 41 percent of the blue-collar women interviewed were in jobs that did not entail unusual physical demands or unpleasant working conditions. In the so-called "inside craft jobs,' for example, the conditions of work were usually not very different from those found in traditionally-female occupations, and turnover was generally very low. Secondly, a possible explanation for the shorter tenure of many white-collar women is that a few companies which had only recently begun to work on the problems of the underutilization of women had focused their efforts on white-collar jobs first.
Differences between the white-collar and blue-collar groups with regard to aspects of the job that the interviewees liked best were quite dramatic (Chart C). Women in the white-collar jobs were significantly more likely to express a preference for "challenge, " "responsibility," and "working with people," while women in bluecollar jobs were much more likely to mention "high pay" as the aspect of the job they liked best. Women in all types of positions frequently mentioned "variety" as a liked aspect of their new jobs--evidently, they considered their past, traditionally-female jobs as entailing significantly less variety than their present ones.
The category labeled "freedom" in Chart C might also have been labeled "autonomy." The women often mentioned as a desirable feature of their new jobs the fact that they were on their own, could make their own decisions, and did not have a supervisor monitoring their work continually. Several of them pointed out that this autonomy seemed to be much more characteristic of traditionally-male than of traditionally-female jobs.
Two of the women in supervisory positions said that they liked the fact that their subordinates, both male and female, had accepted their appointments much more enthusiastically than they had ever expected they would.
With regard to dislikes, the differences between women in whitecollar vs. blue-collar jobs were substantial (Chart D). The women in white-collar positions were much more likely to mention the "paperwork" or boring "routines" as being aspects of the jobs they disliked than were women in blue-collar jobs. On the other hand, the women in blue-collar jobs were more likely to mention such factors as "the dirty work," the "mechanical aspects," or the "outside environment; "they referred not only to the fact that they might have to work in inclement weather, but also to the fact that the jobs sometimes required that they go into dangerous neighborhoods.
When "hours of work" was identified as a negative aspect of the job, the blue-collar workers almost invariably referred to undesirable shifts, while the few white-collar workers who mentioned this item referred to the longer hours required to carry out their jobs properly.
Although "harassment from peers" was mentioned more often as a disliked aspect of the job by the white-collar women, the women in blue-collar jobs generally took much more abuse from their male associates than did women in white-collar positions. Perhaps the women in the blue-collar jobs were not as likely to mention this because they had expected to be harassed and therefore did not consider this aspect of the job to be unusual enough to be mentioned as a "dislike."
Aspects of the Job Liked "Best” by the Target Women
Chart D. Job Aspects Liked "Least" by the Target Women
Page 6
Several of the women in managerial positions mentioned as a "dislike" the fact that they are so visible in their new positions. One of the women disliked the way in which she is so frequently scheduled for interviews with outsiders (like the authors of this report) because of her visibility.
In the blue-collar group, several of the women described the physical requirements of the work as being the least agreeable aspect of the job. Some of these jobs required a great deal of walking, climbing, and lifting.
While a few women in blue-collar jobs said that they felt inadequately trained to do the work, two others complained that there was not enough to do in their new jobs--not because they were given fewer assignments than the men, but because there were more people in the jobs than were really needed. On the other hand, several women interviewed liked least the fact that they had too much work to do in their jobs.
NATURE OF PREVIOUS JOBS HELD
Each of the target women was asked to describe the sequence of jobs she had held before she was appointed to her present position. Most women in both groups had started in clerical jobs:
The second most common starting job was phone operator for women in blue-collar positions and a technical or professional position for white-collar women. (These were all held by college graduates in technical fields, such as engineering or accounting.)
The types of jobs held by the women immediately before their present assignments were similar to their starting jobs, except for an increase in the numbers of women in blue-collar jobs whose previous post was clerical in nature, and a decrease in this category for women in white collar jobs:
Relatively few of the women in traditionally-male blue-collar jobs work could be new in the craft job and yet outrank most of the men in seniority.
Among the women in white-collar jobs, it was also very common to have started in some kind of clerical position. Many of these women had worked their way up to a staff or supervisory position before being appointed to their present job, and the previously-held supervisory position often entailed supervising an all-female group, such as a clerical staff. However, the women had previously held a staff or supervisory position which could also be classified as a traditionally-male job. Another group, whose first jobs were professional or technical in nature, either remained in these roles or moved into managerial positions.
A very common pattern among women in white-collar jobs was to have worked their way up through the secretarial ranks to a position as secretary to a high-level executive or officer, where they had an opportunity to demonstrate their administrative skills and supervisory potential. They were thus able to qualify for their present traditionally-male job, which was often a fairly responsible staff or managerial position.
SELF-PERCEIVED QUALIFICATIONS
When the target women were asked whether they felt as qualified to perform their jobs as most men, the great majority felt equally qualified, with little difference in this regard between white- and blue-collar women:
Approximately 16 percent of the total group said they did not feel fully qualified, but about 4 percent felt that they were even better qualified than most men for the kind of work they were doing.
When asked if they felt handicapped in any aspect of the job, a majority of women in both white- and blue-collar positions said that they were not (Chart E). For both groups, the most frequentlymentioned handicapping aspect of the job was a lack of technical know-how. For women in blue-collar positions, a relative lack of strength and stamina was often mentioned as a handicapping factor. Related to lack of technical background was the lack of specific job knowledge, which was more often mentioned by women in the whitecollar positions than by those in blue-collar jobs.
By "visibility" as a handicap, the women referred to the fact that it was so unusual to find a female in their new jobs that people often treated them in an unusual manner, sometimes making it difficult to accomplish the objectives of the job. The handicap labeled "working with people" was related to the visibility category. Several of the women in managerial positions reported that some subordinates did not treat them in a relaxed and normal manner, as they probably would have treated a male supervisor.
Chart E. Handicaps in the Job, as Perceived by the Target Women
When asked if they felt that their sex gave them any advantages in carrying out their jobs, about 20 percent of the women mentioned some specific advantage. In several cases, the woman indicated that she had much more relevant experience before being appointed to her present job than did most male appointees. In other instances, the woman felt that she could obtain cooperation more readily than could a comparable male in that particular job. This was likely to be true, for example, in a position that required dealing with obstreperous customers.
Closely related to the question about handicaps was the question dealing with aspects of the job which men typically performed but the women did not. Most women in both groups maintained that the men performed no aspects of the job that they, as women, did not perform:
For those that did mention some differences, the most frequently-cited item was that the men were given more responsibility than the women had. However, 10 of the women interviewed, including eight in the white-collar group, cited some responsibility which they had that the men were not given.
The category labeled "excluded from some bad assignments" usually referred to tasks which it may have been more dangerous or in some ways more undesirable for a woman than a man to carry out. For example, blue-collar women who had outside jobs may have been excluded from routes in the ghetto areas of a large city. However, only some of the companies made such exceptions; in most firms, the women mai d, and their managers corroborated, that they took their turns at exactly the same kinds of routes that the men were asked to take. Page 7
With regard to white-collar positions, the "excluded" category sometimes referred to travel assignments which men were more likely to be given than women, or to assignments which dealt with the public where it was anticipated that the persons to be contacted could become abusive. In one case, a professional woman expressed some concern that the company might not consider her for certain promotions, because such jobs would require travel with male peers. In two or three cases, female engineers said that they were not given some of the dirty and more dangerous assignments. Again, however, this was companyspecific. In many firms, a concerted effort seemed to be made to insure that the assignments given to the women in formerly-male jobs were not different in any way from assignments given the men.
DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED
The majority of the women interviewed admitted that they did experience some difficulties in the job that most men did not experience. This was more likely to be true for women in blue-collar jobs, where 67 percent mentioned some difficulty, than for women in white-collar jobs, where 52 percent said that they experienced some difficulties that men do not. The most frequently-mentioned problem encountered by women in blue-collar jobs was the harassment they took from male peers (Chart F). (Chart F). A few women maintained that some men were so resentful about their moving into traditionally-male jobs that they went so far as to sabotage some of their work. The reactions of most men were not this drastic, but they could prove to be annoying nevertheless.
A number of women in blue-collar jobs maintained that the men very frequently helped each other with difficult assignments, but would rarely help a woman in similar circumstances. The women felt that the men were hoping that they would fail. In these conditions, it is not surprising that the failure rates of women in such jobs were sometimes higher than those for men. In fact, it seemed remarkable that the success rate for women in many of the traditionally-male blue-collar jobs was actually as high as it was. The women who stuck with such jobs seemed to exhibit an unusual amount of determination and perseverance under stressful conditions.
On-the-Job Difficulties Experienced by the Target Women
Five of the women in professional and managerial positions also mentioned difficulties classified under the "harassment from peers" heading. One woman who was the only female in a group of professionals said:
"Many times people in this group have to work together to get an give me information, or in one case a man even gave me some wrong information. Some of them seem to be wanting to do anything they can to show that a woman can't handle this kind of work."
Related to "harassment from peers" was the fact that supervisors were frequently reported to show animosity toward the women, expecially those in blue-collar jobs. They claimed that the foreman was sometimes forced to take women into his work group even though he was very much against the idea. According to one woman:
"The men make it tough for me to do well, and the supervisor is
Several other women expressed similar difficulties with their supervisors.
The most frequently mentioned difficulty for women in professional and managerial positions was the lack of respect shown by other employees. This complaint was seldom made with regard to subordinates, but very often the woman in either a managerial or staff position said that other employees in the company at all levels did not always show her the same respect they would a man in her position.
Sometimes women in managerial positions reported that others in the company did not treat them with the same respect that they would a male manager at the same level because of disbelief that a woman really held such a job. For example, one woman who was in a much higher level management position than was ever held by women in her company in the past, described some of the difficulties she had in dealing with people both within and outside the company:
"I sometimes get a little irritated with the frequent reactions of disbelief when I'm dealing with people who cannot seem to comprehend the fact that I actually am the District Manager. They think that I must be a clerk who has misunderstood their request to talk to the manager. At first I was flattered by these reactions, but now they are getting a bit annoying."
The difficulty labeled "visibility" is closely related to the lack of respect category. A number of women in both blue- and white-collar positions felt that their job was made more difficult by the fact that people reacted to them in a strange manner--that is, others found it so strange to have a woman in the target job that they did not deal with the job incumbent in the same way that they would have dealt with
These situations, like many of the other difficulties which women described, may be temporary phenomena. In fact, many of the women in management positions said that a transition was already taking place, that most men who might have found it difficult and awkward to work with a woman manager were now beginning to behave in a normal and relaxed manner in meetings and other interactions.
Difficulties with the physical demands of the job and with harassment from the public were experienced almost exclusively by women in blue-collar jobs. Physical difficulties usually involved the need to lift heavy loads or having to work with heavy tools and equipment.
Harassment from the public referred in the majority of cases to the negative reaction on the part of the public to the fact that the woman was carrying out a "man's job." One woman drove a truck in her work and came into contact with the public in carrying out many assignments, said:
"Some people show resentment of the fact that I am in a man's
In a number of cases, the women in blue-collar jobs that entailed not classified as a difficulty. In some cases, the women who reported experiences of this kind seemed to find the men's advances more flattering than annoying, and just laughed about it as they described their experiences.
In summary, it seemed to the interviewers that the women in traditionally-male jobs frequently experienced difficulties which would make it much harder for them to perform effectively than would be true for a man in the same job. These difficulties seemed to be serious enough in some blue-collar jobs to make it almost impossible for a woman to succeed. In fact, in companies which did not have
much success in using women in formerly all-male jobs, the problems seemed to stem more often from the unusual difficulties faced by the women in the jobs than from any lack of ability to perform the tasks involved.
Most of the women felt that they had been given no more or less help than men were given in the same jobs.
This response was even more typical for those in the blue-collar jobs, but about 22 percent of these women felt they had been given more help than comparable men in the same jobs. However, about 15 percent said that they were given less help than the men.
Among the women in white-collar jobs, those given less help usually said this was because they had had more experience in the department before being appointed to their present position than was true for most men. On the other hand, the women in the blue-collar jobs who said that they were given less help than the men almost invariably attributed this to the fact that the men in the work group, including the supervisor, felt that they were intruding in the man's work world.
ATTITUDES OF MALE EMPLOYEES
Quite clearly, the women in white-collar positions were much more likely to be accepted by male employees than was the case for women in blue-collar jobs (Chart G). For example, 15 of the women in blue-collar jobs who were interviewed reported that the men showed strong resentment of the fact that women were in the jobs. (This category on the scale was defined as resentment so strong that it actually interfered with the woman's work.) One blue-collar woman described her situation like this: Page 8
"I feel set up as an example. If I'm late, the whole group is ask questions. The guys don't include me in breaks or going out to lunch. I'm considering going into a lower classificationjust because of the pressure and hassles I've been getting."
Another woman commented on some negative attitudes that she feels are justified:
"What they resent is when the company hands people jobs. I've seen females allowed to bypass certain craft tests, for example. It's not fair to push women into jobs when a lot of people don't get a chance."
At the other end of the scale, 36 of the women in white-collar jobs felt that their male working associates showed no resentment. A few others said that the men accepted them, but it seemed that their acceptance primarily reflected their awareness of the company's equal opportunity commitments. (As Chart G shows, this reaction was less frequently encountered in the women in blue-collar jobs.) One woman in her early thirties who is now in a higher-level management job than was previously attainable by women, described the attitudes of male employees toward her new job's status in this way:
"Most men have been very accepting of my success because they
The most frequently reported reaction on the part of men was that they initially showed resentment toward newly-appointed women in their job categories, but that this resentment soon wore off and the men became accepting.
Some women reported that even the manager who had promoted them showed signs of resenting the woman's move into a formerly all-male job, an attitude that was usually attributed to the possibility that he had felt constrained to promote the women because of the equal opportunity program. This lack of acceptance could be shown in subtle ways. For example, a woman who had been promoted to a much higher-level staff job than had previously been held by women, described her supervisor's behavior:
"Despite the fact that my boss actually promoted me to my new job, never approve if I went out to get a cup of coffee with a person I am discussing a problem with, or if I went to lunch with aclient; but the men don't hesitate at all to do this."
It is possible, of course, that this woman's evaluation of her boss's attitudes could be in error. When she was asked by the interviewer if she had ever actually tested the boss by going out for coffee or lunch with a client, she admitted she would be afraid to try it.
Another woman said that she had no problems with her own supervisor, but that managers up the line from her boss seemed threatened by her being in a man's job. She said:
"My boss has been great about the fact that I am doing a man's job. But his boss and other managers at that level seem to be antagonistic. They don't seem to like the idea that women are starting to move into their territory."
ATTITUDES OF OTHER
The attitudes of other female employees toward the target women could not be classified on a simple scale from very accepting to strong resentment, as was true for the male attitudes. The predominant reaction of other women was positive, as might be expected (Chart H). Of the other reactions, most of which could probably be considered at least partly negative, it is interesting to note that equal numbers of women in blue-collar and white-collar positions reported that other women reacted with envy or jealousy to their moving into a man's world of work. A related reaction, much more often reported by women in blue-collar jobs, was that other female employees thought they were "crazy" to want to move into what had been a traditionally-male job. This usually meant that the women felt the new job role was so incompatible with feminine abilities and interests that any woman who would want a job of that kind must be a little crazy.
The seven women who reported that other women reacted with apprehension were all managers who felt that their new subordinates of the same sex were somewhat concerned about how they were going to be treated by a female boss. Several women in managerial jobs speculated that some women might not like to work for a female
supervisor because they are afraid they will not be able to control her in the same way that they can control a man. They said that many women felt that they had learned to manipulate men, but did not expect these techniques to work with a female boss. Looking at it from the other direction, one female manager commented that she finds it more difficult to work with women than men. She felt that she might be prejudiced against women herself.
A significant number of white-collar women reported that other women reacted negatively to their having taken a traditionally-male job. A typical reaction in this category was described by one woman as follows:
"Among the people I used to work with, the men have generally been
Sometimes the negative reactions of other women were attributed only to certain types of women. For example, one woman in describing the attitudes of other women employees said:
"The younger women in the office seem to have been very pleased at seeing me get the opportunities I've had. On the other hand, many of the older women seem to resent my success. They seem to be thinking 'Why should she be getting these kinds of opportunities, when I never had them?'
In summary, however, it should be emphasized again that the majority of other women in the companies studied reacted positively to the fact than one of their own sex was promoted into a job which hitherto had been reserved almost exclusively for men.
Almost all of the women in blue-collar jobs (69 out of 73) said that their pay was the same as that of men in the same work:
Page 9
Only two women thought their pay was definitely less than men got in the same jobs and two others thought it was "probably less." Most of the women in blue-collar positions were in unionized groups where the contract called for equal pay for equal work.
In the white-collar jobs, there seemed to be a little more ambiguity about pay comparisons. Nine of the women said that they didn't know how their pay compared to that of men. Five felt that they definitely were being paid less than comparable men and 13 felt that their pay was "probably less" than that of men. On the other hand, four of the women in professional or managerial positions felt that their pay was probably higher than that of comparable men because of the need for catch-up dictated by an equal employment opportunity settlement.
SATISFACTION WITH CAREER PROGRESS
When asked how satisfied they were with their career progress in the company to date, the great majority of the women expressed some degree of satisfaction: Blue White- Total collar collar
The women in the white-collar positions were much more positive in that a much higher percentage of them felt that they were "very satisfied" with their career progress in the company.
The reasons for expressing dissatisfaction differed by collarcolor. Frequently, the dissatisfaction of the blue-collar women was attributed to the fact that they were not being promoted as fast as the men within their job classifications. Others in blue-collar jobs expressed dissatisfaction because they disliked the job very much, yet felt trapped because they would suffer a great loss in pay if they were to move into any other kind of work.
Among the white-collar women who expressed dissatisfaction, several said that the recent recession had slowed their progress. In a few cases, dissatisfaction was expressed because the women felt that their promotions were due only to the equal opportunity program, and not because the management people responsible for the promotions truly respected and had confidence in their capabilities.
APPRAISAL OF FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
The women's perceptions of their future opportunities were somewhat less favorable than their satisfaction with progress already achieved:
Very often, this lack of optimism about the future was attributed to the business recession. In some companies there was a hiring freeze, and the turnover rate had dropped to practically zero; consequently, there was relatively little upward movement within the ranks.
Some women gave other reasons for pessimism about the future. A A few of those in white-collar positions felt they had been placed in "deadend" jobs, while others thought their companies were unwilling to promote women beyond a certain point. Some noted that most of the men who are now upper-level managers had considerably more technical background than women who are currently moving through the ranks. One professional woman who seemed extremely competent mentioned the absence of career development programs or career paths in her company. She felt that a man with potential in her position would have had more exposure to a wide variety of experiences. A few blue-collar women were pessimistic because many of the jobs on which they could bid were unattractive to them.
As a group, the white-collar women were considerably more positive about future opportunities than were women in blue-collar positions. Many who had unexpectedly achieved high-level professional or managerial positions were very optimistic about their future careers in the company. The five women who rated their future opportunities as "extremely goal" felt they were much more likely to have opportunities to progress up the ladder than were comparable male employees.
Again, when the women were asked about their career aspirations in the company, the women in white-collar positions were much more hopeful than blue-collar women. Sixty-five percent (59 of 91) of the women in white-collar positions expected to progress two levels or more (table 1). Ten of these women Ten of these women thought that it was very realistic to expect to be an officer of the company at some future date.
In the blue-collar ranks, many of the women felt that it was unrealistic to expect to advance very much, because the next rung in the ladder was the foreman's job. They said it was hard enough for the men to accept women as co-workers; to expect them to tolerate female supervisor seemed out of the question. On the other hand, some of the interviews with the foremen revealed that the supervisor did not consider it unlikely that the woman could be appointed to such a position. (As a matter of fact, some of the women classified here as "white-collar" because of their "exempt" status, were actually-bluecollar supervisors.)
About half the women interviewed indicated that their new job roles had caused no problems at all in their outside life (Chart I). Of those who did mention such problems, the difficulty most frequently referred to was with the husband or a male friend--but the nature of these problems was usually different for blue-collar as opposed to white-collar women.
For women in blue-collar jobs, problems with a husband or male friend were most likely to stem from the fact that the woman was working in groups composed almost entirely of men. In some instances, the husband or man involved was concerned that the woman would be subject to sexual advances from her male working associates. In other cases, they were afraid that male working associates might abuse the women because of their resentment of the presence of women in their work groups. related concern was the fear that women whose jobs required them to come into contact with the public might be propositioned or even abused by other men.
Target Women's Experience of Off-the-Job Problems Related to Their New Job Roles
Page 10
Their concerns also had to do with the woman being in a higher classification than the husband or male friend. Some blue-collar women were experiencing conflict over this issue, while others expressed fears that their husbands or men friends would react negatively in the future if they got promotions or moved into higher classifications.
Another issue that came up was the feeling of some of the bluecollar women that it was hard to perform all the traditional female tasks in addition to their new jobs, which were more physically demanding than clerical work. Husbands still expected them to clean house, fix meals, and do the normal "wifely" chores.
For women in white-collar positions, their problems almost invariably stemmed from jealousy on the part of the male partner that the woman had achieved as much success as she had. Until it becomes more commonplace for women to hold high-level professional or managerial positions, traditional norms about appropriate roles for women vis-a-vis men will undoubtedly cause problems.
This was true for approximately 20 percent of the women in whitecollar jobs. However, it was also true that many women interviewed said that their promotions had caused no problems at all with their husbands; in fact, they often said that their husbands were very proud of the progress they had made. But when queried further, the majority of these women admitted that the husband's position-level was still well above theirs or that the husband was in a different professional field and did not feel in any way competitive with his wife.
One woman's description of problems her unexpected promotions have caused in her outside life is rather typical for those who mentioned problems with husbands:
"My new job was definitely a primary cause of the break-up of my marriage. We seemed to have a pretty good marriage. When I first started to get promotions, my husband was proud of me. But as time went on, he began to show that he was actually jealous. He never said this, but he began to deride me as a 'libber' and started to make derogatory cracks about 'career women,' and the like. Then he began to pressure me to quit working even though that had never ever been mentioned before. We always assumed that I would always work, and he knew that I always identified very strongly with my work and liked what I was doing very much. Evidently he would have preferred that I stay as a more dependent, submissive wife. My success was a real threat to him.
Another woman in a much higher-paying job than was customary for women to hold in the past, indicated that she did not now have a problem with her husband, but possibly could have in the future. She said:
"My husband accepts my situation pretty well now, but his nose
On the other hand, a number of women mentioned that they had no problems at all with their husbands. One said that her spouse was supportive and flexible and that her job had enhanced their relationship. Another woman made a point that she was making more money than her husband, "but he hasn't complained yet." Several women commented that their husbands were very considerate and helpful at home.
Some of the single women also had problems with men friends. One who was in a very high level management job for her sex and age described her off-the-job problems this way:
"Sometimes a new man I am dating is really taken aback when he finds out the level of my job and the fact that I supervise lots of men. Often it seems to have a decided effect on the fellow's attitude toward me. He begins to treat me in a strained way and seems to be uncomfortable with me. So far the rewards of the job offset this negative effect on my social life, but I sometimes wonder if that will always be the case.
Women in blue-collar jobs somtimes described a similar problem with a slightly different twist. One woman in a craft-type occupation where the pay was about twice as much as she had made in her previous clerical jobs said:
"I've lost a couple of old boy friends who resented the money I was making and the fact that I have taken a job away from a man. For some reason, they seemed to act like it is indecent for a girl to make the same kind of pay the men make."
The four women who said their job caused some problems with children usually referred to perceived child neglect or to the problem of having to take time off when the children were sick. One woman
recounted a different problem with regard to children, however. She had not only achieved a very high-level management position in her career, but had also raised a family of five children. She described some of the problems she has had with this dual role as follows:
"I think that being a working mother definitely affects the child-
Problems with parents, which were most often referred to by blue-collar women, sometimes stemmed from the fact that the woman was violating a cultural norm by holding a man's job. In other cases, the parents did not like the hours of work or the dangers involved in some outside jobs.
Problems with friends for the blue-collar women were also likely to be somewhat different from those encountered by women in white-collar jobs. Some of the women in blue-collar jobs had lost friends because their hours of work did not correspond to those of their acquaintances. For the white-collar women, problems were likely to stem from the fact that they had moved up the job ladder to levels well beyond those of any of their former friends. A woman promoted to a high management level described some of the problems this had caused with old friends, both within and outside the company:
"I have lost contact with most of the friends I had before I be out of their league. Some old friends seemed to be envious to the point of resenting my success. Some people who were very supportive and encouraging at first have done an aboutface now. They actually seem to be threatened by my success.
Those conflicts classified as "psychological problems" covered a variety of situations. For women in the blue-collar jobs, continual harassment from their male co-workers sometimes caused undesirable tensions and those on rotating shifts indicated that they always felt tense and tired because of the interruption of their normal sleep-cycle. (These irritating effects of rotating shift schedules have been experienced by most men as well.)
For women in white-collar occupations, psychological problems were commonly caused by having been thrown into jobs for which they did not feel fully qualified. As one woman expressed it:
"Being on a management training program, I am often given an assignment that I am obviously not qualified to handle. Sometimes it might involve supervising a bunch of men. While they usually understand that this is a training assignment for me, I'm always coping, trying to survive. It's very wearing psychologically. Sometimes I find myself questioning my own femininity."
Another female manager supervising men with more technical knowledge and background than she had expressed similar feelings:
"I work long, hard hours and spend a lot of time thinking about work even when I'm at home. I occasionally get depressed and question my ability. I worry about whether I'm doing a good job, even while I'm pushing myself relentlessly."
Another kind of psychological problem mentioned by several whitecollar women had to do with conflict between personal and professional goals. One woman in her late twenties was trying to make a decision about whether to have children. She didn't want to give up her career because she was getting a lot of satisfaction from her work, yet she wasn't sure whether she could entrust her child to child-care professionals. Another young woman who was in a relatively high-level management position, especially for her age, mentioned that she has become more intolerant of men with traditional ideas about women. She wondered if she has become too hard on men and thus narrowed the field of potential partners with whom she could share her life.
PROBLEMS WITH FRIENDS
The women in white-collar jobs were most likely to mention problems with old associates within the company:
Many of the blue-collar women had been hired from outside the company and therefore had no previous working associates in the firm. And even among the women in the white-collar jobs, the great majority said they had no significant problems.
of the women who did mention some problem, the most frequent category was the loss of old friends. Closely related to this was the loneliness that their new job entailed.
Women in another company who had experienced similar problems organized a mutual support-group of women who had been promoted to levels previously unattainable. They met from time to time, organized luncheon meetings and evening social events to provide for associations of persons at similar jobs and educational levels.
Ten of the women in managerial positions mentioned the fact that the transition from being a member of a work group to being the boss has been very difficult for them. They feel somewhat awkward now in having to supervise former associates. On the other hand, some supervisors said that they had always avoided socializing with work colleagues, even before their promotions.
One blue-collar woman who worked in an otherwise all-male group felt that the sole conflict between her job and her role as a friend of other employees, had to do with the reaction of her co-worker's wives:
"At an office party the wives wouldn't let their husbands Page 11
The issue of attraction between male and female co-workers also came up as a problem with white-collar women. One manager commented that the attraction between herself and some of her male peers became such a hindrance to working together that she decided to eliminate social contacts with fellow employees. A professional woman who travels occasionally with male colleagues has found it necessary to clarify the nature of the relationships and keep everything on a business footing.
This was one of the few areas in the interviews with the target women where the responses obtained by the female interviewer were significantly different from those obtained by the male interviewer. For some reason, the women seemed more likely to tell the female interviewer about such problems as loneliness, the difficulties of supervising former associates, and the like. of the 23 women who recounted difficulties of these kinds, 19 mentioned them to the female interviewer and only four talked about such problems with the male interviewer.
APPROACHES USED BY BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
From the standpoint of this study, the most important question asked of the women interviewed concerned the approaches or behaviors they had found to be effective in carrying out their formerlymale jobs. As might be expected, the responses differed by collarcolor.
Among blue-collar women, the most frequently mentioned approach was to "try to learn the job as best one can in order to be technically competent" (table 2). This was seen as a critical need for two reasons. In the first place, many of the women confessed that they were at a disadvantage, compared with men, in their lack of preparation for the jobs, which often required some technical knowledge or experience which men were more likely to have than women. Secondly, the women very often felt that they were on the spot, in that the men would be looking for inadequacies in their ability to do the work. Therefore, in order to insure that they would not make mistakes and look bad to their male working associates, many of them felt that they had to make an extra effort to learn the job as well as possible. In addition, several felt that women seem more proud of their work and more interested in doing a good job than men.
The second most frequently mentioned approach was to "ignore the harassment of male working associates." It is interesting to note, however, that the data obtained by the two interviewers on this item differed significantly. The male interviewer had recorded this item as an approach taken by the women in blue-collar jobs in 24 out of the total of 26 cases where this was mentioned. It is difficult to explain
APPROACHES USED BY WOMEN IN BLUE-COLLAR JOBS TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
the reason for this difference. Either the women felt that it was more appropriate to mention the need to ignore harassment from male associates to the male interviewer, or the interviewer himself was more sensitive to any indication that the women were behaving in this way.
A similar behavior or approach, mentioned by nine of the women, was to react courteously, rather than antagonistically, to the taunts and harassing of male working associates. Several of the women said that they had used this strategy right from the start and had found that the taunts and harassing soon died out. In other cases, the women confessed to having learned this lesson with experience.
Another frequently-mentioned approach was to "work very hard--try to do more than my share of the work." Many of the women seemed to feel that in order to prove themselves and to gain acceptance of the men, they had to do more work than would have been required of a man. They felt that the men were very sensitive to any indication that the women might be doing less work than the men.
Many of the women mentioned the importance of maintaining a friendly and cooperative attitude on the job, whether or not they were referring to harassment by the men. Relatively few of them, however, (four in all) felt that it was advisable to try to be one of the boys. In fact, one woman said:
"I found that the worst thing I could do was to try I just have to ignore them as best I can and do my own work and mind my own business to get along."
A few blue-collar women felt that the key to their success had nothing to do with any particular approaches, but was mainly due to the positive attitude of their supervisors. Others said that the only thing that kept them going was "a strong mental attitude."
APPROACHES USED BY WHITE-COLLAR WOMEN TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
The approach most frequently mentioned by white-collar women (and ( this applied almost exclusively to women in managerial positions) was to avoid authoritarianism (table 3). Many of the women said they either felt intuitively or learned through experience that it was not advisable to treat subordinates in a "bossy" manner. They felt that it was easier for a male supervisor to use that approach and still be effective than it was for a woman. All of the target women in supervisory or
APPROACHES USED BY WOMEN IN WHITE-COLLAR JOBS TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
managerial positions supervised at least some men. They either expected, or found through experience, that men would find it difficult to take orders from a woman. Several women also said that they typically gave more background information and explanation along with an order than they had found male supervisors to do in the past.
Even women in jobs that did not entail managing others sometimes reported that an authoritarian manner seemed to lessen their effectiveness. For example, a relatively young woman in a much higher-level staff job than was traditionally achieved by women described her experience as follows:
"I have found that in meetings with men, I can not If I come on strong, the men often seem to react defensively and emotionally, and then I cannot achieve my goal with regard to that issue."
Along the same lines, another professional woman said:
"I try to hold back on my intelligence and aggressiveness in order not to put people off."
It is reasonable to assume that reactions of this kind will gradually change as it becomes more common to find women in the higherlevel management positions.
Eighteen women also said that they made a special effort to use a participative approach in managing others. That is, they involved subordinates in decision-making, delegated responsibility, gave their people a lot of information about what was going on in the organization, explained orders given or decisions made, held group meetings from time to time, and took other actions of the kind that are usually associated with the participative approach to managing.
A somewhat different approach, equally often mentioned, was to "maintain an air of confidence and assurance." Many of the women felt that they had to make it very clear that they were in charge and that they knew what they were doing. They felt that any show of weakness or doubt along this line might result in their losing control of the group.
In general, it appeared that women were very often finding that it was more important for them to use the kinds of managerial practices that management training experts consider desirable than it was for the men. This was not necessarily because the women had been given any supervisory training (which was the exception rather than the rule); rather, they seemed to realize intuitively, or to learn from experience, Page 12
that such practices as avoiding authoritarianism and using the participative approach were effective. Similar approved behaviors of this kind were to "treat people as individuals--be sensitive to individual differences," etc. Many of the women also felt that being more helpful and considerate of subordinates than most male supervisors assisted them in being an effective leader of the group.
White-collar women mentioned a much greater variety of behaviors or approaches than blue-collar women. Several of the white-collar women, for example, mentioned that they were very careful to be as fair as possible in the way they treat all of their subordinates, showing no favoritism between the male and female members of their work group. Relatively few of the women said that they used their femininity to advantage in getting work done--and of the six who did admit to using this behavior, five reported it to the male interviewer and only one to the female interviewer.
One supervisor felt that her interest in sports and cars and the traditionally-male topics of conversation had made it easier for her to get along informally with men. Another woman mentioned that it helped to be comfortable and at ease with a group of men; she has tried just to forget she's a woman. A third white-collar woman admitted to feeling handicapped by the lack of informal communication with the men in the office. At first, she had avoided the office scuttlebut, the card-playing and discussions of sporting events; then she realized that a lot of important communication goes on in such sessions.
Two of the categories listed in table 3 are the same as those coded for the blue-collar women. One of these, which was mentioned second most often, was to "learn the job as well as possible--to become technically competent.' As with the women in blue-collar jobs, many of the women in professional or managerial jobs felt that they could not afford to make many mistakes because of their visibility. Therefore, they felt that they probably worked harder than most men to learn all aspects of the job and minimize the possibilities of making poor decisions or costly errors.
On the other hand, a number of women also mentioned the importance , of being absolutely honest if they did not have the background knowledge or experience to make a decision. They found that it was essential that they not try to bluff their way in such a situation. Several women said that they used the knowledge and experience of their subordinates, rather than trying to make decisions by themselves in areas where they did not have as much technical background as some of the people in their work groups.
Like some of the women in blue-collar jobs, a number of the profes a sional and managerial women said that they probably worked harder at the job than most men would in a similar role. Often they attributed the need for this approach to their visibility, but also related it to their need to learn the job as well as possible in order to become technically competent. As one woman put it in explaining the need to do her best:
"Since I am the first female to be promoted to this level of this kind."
COMPOSITE PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND SEX-ROLE CHARACTERIZATIONS
Two other measures were derived from the interview data to gain insight into additional factors which might facilitate the integration of women into traditionally-male jobs. One measure was a job performance rating, which was constructed from several sources for women for whom we had interview data. The second measure was a crude index of masculinityfemininity-androgyny constructed for women for whom we had descriptions of "effective job behaviors" from the respective woman herself and at least two other persons in the manager, peer, and subordinate groups. Both of these measures could be constructed for a total of 52 women 29
29/ With regard to the job performance measure, all of the 52 women had been evaluated by two or more other employees on a scale from one to five, ranging from "doing an excellent job" to "doing very poorly." In general, there was fairly good agreement in the ratings assigned by the different interviewees. The mean of all ratings on each woman was calculated to yield a composite index of performance. The distribution of these ratings did not vary significantly from the distributions of ratings found through separate analyses of manager, peer, and subordinate data on the performance of target women. About half of the 52 women had composite performance ratings in the middle category of the three-point scale--that is, they were rated as "doing a good job." About a quarter of the women's mean ratings reflected excellence in performance, while the other quarter received a composite rating that indicated they were "not doing as well as most men.'
The measure of sex-role characterization was constructed in a slightly more complex fashion. Responses to the question on effective behaviors of target women were characterized for each of the 52 females and at least two other employees who worked with the respective woman. The descriptions of behavior were analyzed according to their stereotyped "masculinity," "femininity," or "neutrality." Behaviors that seem consistent with traditionally-masculine personality characteristics were rated as "masculine," while approaches consistent with traditionallyfeminine qualities were categorized as "feminine."
For each of the 52 women, therefore, at least four behavioral descriptions were available from different sources which could be classified as masculine or feminine. A composite index of sex role characterization was constructed for each of them, based on their behaviors described by themselves, managers, peers and/or subordinates. Women were categorized as predominantly masculine if all their ratings, or all but one, were classified as masculine. They were classified as predominantly feminine if all their behaviors, or all but one, were categorized as feminine. Any woman who had at least two masculine behaviors and two feminine behaviors mentioned by herself or others was classified as androgynous. Some women had as many as 12 behaviors coded, but the average number was seven. Those with less than four "codable" behaviors were not classified.
The findings show that 63.5 percent of the women were classified as androgynous, 15.4 percent as predominantly masculine, and 21.1 percent as predominantly feminine. There were no significant differences in the composite performance ratings of the three groups.
Most women who are successful in traditionally-male jobs, therefore, would appear to have in their repertoire qualities or behaviors that in the past have been typically associated with masculinity. But these women don't necessarily have to give up certain qualities or behaviors that have been associated with femininity in order to do well. Instead, many seemed to have achieved a balance of both "masculine" and "feminine" qualities, This finding lends support to the prediction that the traditional female role conflict over achievement orientation and femininity may disappear. Stereotyping of behaviors as masculine or feminine may decline in the future as men and women begin to develop the full range of human qualities while maintaining individual differences.
The 102 managers interviewed can be divided into three sub-groups:
(1) those who supervised directly one or more of the target women in blue-collar jobs;
(2) those who supervised directly one or more of the target women in white-collar jobs; and
(3) other managers concerned with the equal opportunity program, including personnel
Of the total group interviewed, 36 were in the first category, 49 in the second, and 17 in the third. They ranged in age from the early thirties to over sixty, but 82 were in their forties and fifties. All were male.
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EEO PROGRAM
The first question asked of the managers was how they felt about the equal opportunity program for women. Clearly, the attitudes of managers of white-collar women were much more positive than were attitudes of managers and supervisors of blue-collar women (Chart J). None of the managers of women in blue-collar jobs expressed strong approval of the EEO program, while 22 of the 49 managers of women in white-collar jobs did express such approval.
Those managers who expressed approval with reservations frequently made such comments as: "It's okay if the women can do the work." or "I think the idea is good, but we shouldn't try to go too fast. shouldn't try to push women beyond their capabilities. Other reservations about the program had to do with particular situations:
"I'm for fair pay based on equal performance, but if I have to choose between a male head of household and a single female, I think the male head of household should get preference."
"If a person can do the job, it doesn't matter what sex
A number of the managers who expressed favorable attitudes toward the program also expressed an awareness of their own personal or emotional biases, but seemed intellectually and sometimes morally committed to treating women as equals in keeping with their professional responsibilities: Page 13
"I believe in equality and opportunity for all
"At a logical, business level, I do what has to be done. At an emotional level, I've been socially conditioned to think of females in a certain way. But I know you've got to treat women fairly and equally, just like anyone else."
This level of awareness among managers would seem to be potentially beneficial to women, in that such men would be more sensitive to the ways in which their personal feelings might influence their behavior.
Very often, negative reactions toward the EEO program were not revealed when a manager was asked directly how he felt about the program, but strong negative reactions would surface later in the interview. (This was taken into account when the respective manager's attitude toward the program was coded.) An extreme example of this was encountered in the case of one manager who first said that he was all for the equal opportunity program, that it was long overdue, etc. Later in the interview, when he was asked how the women were performing in the blue-collar jobs he was supervising, he said:
"Women can't do these jobs worth a darn. In fact,
Those managers whose responses were classified as "definitely negative" supervised women in blue-collar jobs, for the most part. As one supervisor of a group performing heavy, dirty work put it:
"The purpose may be good, but the concept is phony. We are
Another supervisor of blue-collar women said:
"Having females working in this classification has resulted in a double standard. They can't do certain jobs. I have to handpick the kinds of jobs they're given and the people they work with."
Some of the men admitted that they changed their attitude quite decidely with experience in supervising women in blue-collar jobs. One man expressed his experience in this way:
"When the company first started to push us into accepting women here, we all laughed about it. We thought the idea was ridiculous. But experi- ence is proving that we were wrong. It is work-
Only two of the managers who supervised women in traditionallymale white-collar jobs expressed strong negative reactions about the program, but there were nine others who expressed reactions which we classified as "somewhat negative. It was very typical of these managers to express general approval of the idea of equalizing opportunities for women, while indicating strong disapproval of the way the program was being administred:
"I'm for paying someone for doing a job, but this company has been giving out too much. It's like stuffing kids with ice cream. When people get a lot for nothing, they may try to hit for more. You can't change the fact that there are differences between men and women.
"I don't like the quota system. It's not being Girls are different, period. They like to have car doors opened for them, and they don't want responsibility."
When attitudes toward the EEO program were correlated with age, it appeared that, among managers of the blue-collar women, the older men were more likely to have negative attitudes toward the program than were the younger ones. The reverse was true among managers of women in white-collar jobs, however. Perhaps, in this case, the younger managers felt more threatened by the equal opportunity program, because they expected more competition for promotions than they experienced in the past.
A number of managers were initially reluctant to answer the question about their attitudes toward the EEO program. They often wanted clarifications, asking "what do you mean, how do I feel...?" Several seemed to avoid discussing their personal feeling at first, and instead focused on how they felt the company was doing in its equal opportunity efforts. Eventually, however, most became more open as the interview progressed. In fact, the interviewers were impressed with the level of honesty and openness in most of the manager interviews, in the expression of both strong negative feelings and complex personal reactions. Several of the managers discussed changes in their attitudes and expressed some awareness of the ways in which they continue to have stereotypic expectations of women. Others mentioned that having adolescent or college-age daughters had increased their sensitivity and commitment to the changing role of women in the work-place. Even some of the blue-collar supervisors described their feelings in a way that indicated a gut-level struggle between their traditional ideas about women and their current reactions to very positive experiences with women in traditionally-male jobs.
The interviewers also observed traces of media impact on manager's attitudes and the effects of general exposure to issues involving women's role. In companies where there had been some "consciousness-raising" preparation for the integration of women into traditionally-male jobs, the approach seemed to have had a positive influence on managers' attitudes. In these firms, a concerted effort was made to avoid calling women "girls" and to treat women in all job categories with respect. Jokes and off-color remarks pertaining to women were not heard.
In other companies, women of all ages were called "girls," and "secretary" stories or jokes about women were told even in the female interviewer's presence. In one of the companies where the female interviewer handled all of the contacts and interviews, the project seemed to be taken less seriously and given less attention than in other companies.
MANAGERS' ESTIMATES OF
In addition to asking each manager interviewed how he felt about the equal opportunity program for women, we asked him to estimate the feelings of other employees at three levels: (1) high-level managers, including executives of the company, (2) middle-level managers, and (3) first-line managers or supervisors.
The managers interviewed felt that attitudes toward the equal opportunity program varied with level of management (table 4). One manager put it this way: "the attitudes of men toward women depend entirely on where the male is sitting." Specifically, they believed Page 14
that the attitudes of managers at high and middle levels were much more favorable than those they attributed to first-line managers. Many said that those at the higher levels were usually strongly in favor of the program and pushing it very hard because they wer not dealing first-hand with the problems involved. The first-line supervisor, on the other hand, not only has to deal very directly with the problems of integrating women into traditionally-male jobs, but may also feel threatened by the new competition he is getting from the women when promotional opportunities arise.
There were a few exceptions to the tendency to attribute more favorable attitudes toward the EEO program to managers at higher levels. Some of the managers interviewed felt that the supervisors at lower levels were accepting the program very well because of positive experiences they had had with women who had recently been moved into traditionally-male jobs. On the other hand, they felt that many managers at higher levels, who had had no such direct experience, were against the idea of trying to use women in these jobs.
ESTIMATES OF THE ATTITUDES
When asked to estimate how different groups of non-managerial employees felt about the equal opportunity program, about 70 percent of the managers gave estimates concerning other male employees, but only about 30 percent felt able to respond with regard to female employees.
As might be expected, the managers attributed much more favorable attitudes to female employees than they did to males (table 5). They felt that none of the men had "strong positive" attitudes toward the idea of integrating women into traditionally-male jobs. The most common guess was that male employees had "mixed feelings" about the integration program. In many cases, the non-managerial male employees were reported to have been very much against the program when it was first introduced, but later appeared to have shifted toward acceptance, especially if they had worked directly with one or more women who seemed to be very effective in the previously-male job.
One manager felt that non-managerial male employees' attitudes usually reflected the attitudes of the managers and supervisors they were in contact with. He expressed this idea as follows:
"There are managers in the company from top to bottom who
As was found when managers of blue-collar employees were questioned about their own attitudes, managers usually attributed much more negative attitudes to other male blue-collar employees than they did to whitecollar employees. In many cases, they attributed the negative attitudes to the resentment that the men in blue-collar jobs felt because having women in their work groups might mean heavier workloads for them. In both blue-collar and white-collar groups, the men were also said to resent the fact that the women might get preferential treatment in promotional decisions because of equal opportunity goals.
With regard to the managers' estimates of the attitudes of other female employees, it is interesting to note that they did not attribute positive attitudes to all the women. They clearly believed that women were more favorably disposed toward the EEO program than were men, but they attributed negative attitudes to a few and "mixed feelings" to quite a few. Several reasons were given for these alleged attitudes of For example, many of the older women were said to believe that it is unfair that young women are now getting promotions that were denied
to women in the past. In other cases, some female employees were said to feel that it lowered their own status to be reporting to a female boss or had negative feelings about the EEO program because they were afraid that women would lose their femininity if they moved into traditionally-masculine jobs. In a few cases, the manager felt that some women were expressing negative attitudes toward the program because they were jealous of the fact that women who were willing to take the formerly-male jobs were making much more money. Allegedly, women expressing negative attitudes for this reason did not want to move into the male-oriented jobs themselves, even though the jobs paid very well.
ESTIMATES OF SUBORDINATES' ATTITUDES
The managers interviewed were also asked to report any reactions they had observed of employees who had a newly-appointed female boss. These were, of course, limited to those supervisory positions previously filled only by men. The great majority of managers did not feel that they could make this judgement, that they had either not known any such subordinates or they had not talked to any about their feelings in this regard:
Of those managers who could respond to this question, more reported that they had observed positive reactions than had noted negative reactions. Some of the managers who reported negative reactions of subordinates admitted that this was not always the result of inadequate performance on the part of the female supervisors. Instead, they said that many subordinates, both male and female, reacted negatively because they thought it was not natural for a woman to be in a dominant role or because they felt it demeaned their own status to have a female boss. In one or two of these instances it appeared that the manager might be projecting his own feelings onto the subordinates whose attitudes he was reporting.
Mixed feelings about having a female supervisor were often attributed to a "wait and see" attitude. In other words, managers said that some subordinates were skeptical, but if the female supervisor proved to be effective, they would accept the situation graciously. In other cases, the reaction of the manager to this question was classified as "mixed" if he said that some subordinates had very positive feelings and others had negative feelings. Several managers remarked that the reactions of subordinates to these female supervisors were generally much more favorable than they had anticipated.
ESTIMATES OF THE TARGET WOMEN'S JOB ATTITUDES
Managers were also asked to estimate how the women who were now The in traditionally-male jobs felt about their new job roles. attitudes of women in white-collar jobs were felt to be much more favorable than attitudes of those in blue-collar jobs:
(Totals in this table do not equal the number of managers
In estimating attitudes of women in blue-collar jobs, managers would often say that the women liked the pay very much, but disliked the work itself. These responses were classified in the "dislike" category because the question focused on attitudes toward the work involved in the job. Page 15
With regard to specific aspects of the jobs which the women were alleged to either like or dislike, the managers' estimates corroborated the opinions expressed by the target women themselves. That is, they frequently mentioned that the women liked the challenge, responsibility, and relative freedom involved in the jobs, as well as the new opportunities for future promotions.
With regard to "dislikes," managers also mentioned some of the same factors that the women themselves had noted in their interviews. Most of the dislikes were associated with blue-collar jobs, where such job characteristics as "dirty work," "physically demanding tasks," "unpleasant personal associations, and the like, were thought to be more repugnant to women than to men.
MANAGERS' RATINGS OF THE TARGET WOMEN'S PERFORMANCE
Each of the managers who supervised directly one or more of the target women was asked to rate their performance in their new jobs. On balance, their ratings appear to be remarkably high when considered in relation to attitudes expressed by these managers about the integration program in general (Chart K). As might be expected, ratings of women in blue-collar jobs were lower than those for women in whitecollar positions; nevertheless, the managers felt that about half the women in blue-collar jobs were performing very well. When they were said to be performing poorly, managers frequently attributed the poor performance to the fact that the women had sometimes been persuaded to try the jobs even though they had no interest in the work itself.
A few supervisors of women in blue-collar jobs said that, although the women could perform the work itself in an adequate manner, they would nevertheless rate their overall performance as poor because of other factors. For example, one supervisor said that the woman reacted so emotionally to the taunts and harassment of the men that she was absent one or two days a week. In another case, which was again very exceptional, the supervisor said that the woman could do the work but that she would sometimes breakdown and cry when a job problem seemed too difficult. Needless to say, this exasperated the men. Another example was given by a supervisor as follows:
"Her problem is in getting along with men. She feels guys who know more than she does. But her poor perfor- mance has to do with her personality, not her ability."
Chart K. Managers' Rating of the Target Women's Performance
In describing the performance of the blue-collar women who were rated as performing very well, the supervisors frequently attributed this to a positive attitude toward work. Many of the women were said to be much more conscientious than most men, and worked much harder to prove that they could do the work well. In general, women who worked in a diligent and conscientious manner usually won the respect of their supervisors, even if there were some aspects of the jobs where they were handicapped technically or physically.
White-collar managers were almost always very pleased with the performance of the women in formerly-male jobs. It was not unusual for the manager to remark that the women on these jobs were performing better than most of the men, attributing the superior performance of the women to the fact that they were trying very hard and applying themselves in a more conscientious manner than did the typical male incumbent of the same job. A few managers felt that this might be a . "honeymoon" attitude which would gradually disappear when more women were placed in the traditionally-male jobs.
In the few cases where women in white-collar positions were not performing in a fully satisfactory manner, managers felt that this was because they had been promoted largely to fill quotas, rather than because they were fully qualified for the jobs. (However, this was certainly the exception rather than the rule.) In two or three situations of this kind, the managers felt that the women had acquired work habits in their traditionally-female job roles that interfered with their adjustment to their new and more responsible jobs. One manager described this problem in an employee who had been promoted to a supervisory post at a relatively late stage in her career:
"Betty has the intelligence, and basically the capability doesn't seem to see the big picture. She is a nit-picker."
Another manager analyzed the weaknesses of a female supervisor in this way:
"She's letting her heart rather than her head rule and interfere with her personal life. I think she's con-
However, it should be emphasized again that the great majority of the women were judged to be performing well. In fact, a number of managers admitted that they were surprised by the women's excellent performance, often adding that these experiences had brought about a decided change in the individual's attitudes toward the idea of employing women in managerial positions. One manager described such an attitude-change as follows:
"When we promoted her to this job, I really had misgivings. But I was determined to give it a try and I planned to back her up and to help her over rough spots. As it turned out, I haven't had to help her at all. She's really taken charge, everybody respects her, and she seems to be on top of the job with no sign of strain. I now think she has the potential to make it to officer level in this company.
When managers were asked about the extra costs involved in the EEO program, the responses they gave with regard to blue-collar jobs differed quite radically from those referring to white-collar jobs (table 6).
The only category of extra costs which appeared with any frequency with regard to women in white-collar jobs was the extra training which was given to women in supervisory positions in two or three of the companies. The "extra equipment costs" referred to in two cases involved the necessity to install locker and shower facilities for the first female engineers placed in power plants.
The picture for women in blue-collar jobs was quite different. In only about one-third of the cases did the managers say there were no additional costs involved. Extra training costs were said to have been incurred for about 20 percent of the women, and higher absenteeism and turnover were frequently mentioned as contributing unduly to costs. Women were also alleged to be significantly less productive in some of the jobs. Extra equipment costs were mentioned in relatively few cases. The category labeled "cannot be given some assignments" could also have been included under the "productivity loss" category, since it referred to situations where job duties had to be tailored to the capabilities of the women. Referring to situations of that kind, several managers asserted that it would be impossible to run the department with an all-female work force. A power-plant superintendent commented that there should have been some extra orientation, since many women were not familiar with mechanical principles or the names and uses of different tools. Page 16
DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSIBILITIES GIVEN MEN AND WOMEN
When queried about job responsibilities that were typically given to men but not to women, supervisors again responded differently, depending on collar-color:
Most of the white-collar managers said there were no differences in the distribution of responsibilities. The few remarks relating to parts of a job a white-collar woman could not perform usually referred to the lack of technical background or experience generally expected of a male manager.
The fact that a job was reorganized when a woman took over was mentioned directly in only three instances, but indirect comments suggested that this happened somewhat more often than was admitted. In one case, the supervisory responsibilities were removed from the job description of a position filled by a woman in a professional capacity, because her manager was fearful that personnel conflicts would arise. Other jobs that had previously required technical expertise along with administrative skills and supervisory ability were altered by removing technical requirements when a women took over. The job classification was then down-graded--a process that prompted one manager to express concern that women were being funneled into only one or two kinds of positions, and that these would lose status and become identified as "typically female" jobs.
The responses of blue-collar supervisors revealed considerable differences in the responsibilities given to men and women. It was most often mentioned that women couldn't perform some parts of the job; for example, managers noted that women couldn't lift as much weight or reach certain valves with ease. In other cases, women were not given "rough" assignments in the community. Although some blue
collar managers felt that women were limited in the quantity of work they could do as well, a third of these supervisors also claimed there were no differences in responsibilities given to men and women.
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN
When asked if they anticipated any problems in providing continuing career opportunities for the women who had moved into traditionally-male jobs, about half of the managers (52 out of 102) said that they anticipated no problems at all. Another 20 percent felt that there might be some problems, although they couldn't be sure at the present time, and the other 30 percent definitely did anticipate some problems in providing future opportunities for the target women.
As might be expected, managers of blue-collar employees were more likely to say that they anticipated such problems. In the case of some jobs, these managers foresaw difficulties in upgrading the women, even within the non-supervisory ranks, because the jobs at higher levels required more physical strength and mechanical skills than most of the women possessed. Several also felt that it would be a long time before a woman could be promoted to a supervisory position and be accepted by the men. On the other hand, some of the target women were already performing satisfactorily as supervisors of blue-collar workers.
In the white-collar group, opinions on this matter varied widely. Some of the managers saw no problems at all, and even went so far as to predict that their company might very well have a female president within the next 10 years or so, while others felt very strongly that it would be difficult to promote women beyond the first or second level of management without encountering considerable resistance. They felt that it would be difficult to get enough acceptance of the women to enable them to perform effectively.
APPROACHES USED BY THE WOMEN TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
The managers interviewed were asked to describe any particular behaviors or approaches the target women used that seemed to enhance their effectiveness. The behaviors the managers described in response to this question were very similar to the approaches or behaviors the women themselves had reported in their interviews (tables 7 and 8).
TABLE 7. OBSERVED APPROACHES USED BY THE WOMEN TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN BLUE-COLLAR JOBS
TABLE 8. OBSERVED APPROACHES USED BY THE WOMEN TO ENHANCE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN WHITE-COLLAR JOBS
For blue-collar women, the most frequently mentioned approach was "tries hard to learn the job as best she can," along with "works hard, does more than her share." Many of the managers said that a woman who approaches the job in a very conscientious manner, asks no quarter, is persistent, and tries to do her best, will gain respect, even if her overall performance is not judged to be equal to that of the men.
While many of the blue-collar women had mentioned the approach of "ignoring harassment by the men" as helping them on the job, relatively few managers mentioned this as a behavior that enhanced performance. About twice as many said that they felt the woman was effective because of her "friendly, cooperative attitude. Perhaps this behavior could be interpreted as similar to that of ignoring harassment, as could assuming a "polite, deferential attitude.' On the other hand, one manager mentioned the importance of a woman not letting the men get away with anything or "walk over her." He described effective behavior of one woman along this line as follows:
"She comes right back at them or else walks away. Once when any of the men could lift--she tried to lift it and then .
Only two managers said anything about the use of "femininity" by the women. One felt that some of the women were effective because they played down their femininity and therefore did not draw attention to themselves. Another believed that some of the women capitalized on their femininity to manipulate their male working associates.
By far the largest discrepancy between the observations of the white-collar managers and the reports of the women themselves relates to the use of the authoritarian approach. (Thirty-two of the women, but only three of the managers, mentioned specifically that the avoidance of the authoritarian approach in dealing with subordinates or other employees seemed to enhance their effectiveness (table 8). However, 13 managers did mention "tactfulness" and "avoiding coming on too strong" as effective. Although these behaviors seem to parallel "avoiding an authoritarian approach, there was still quite a discrepancy between the number of target women and the number of managers who felt that avoiding an authoritarian approach was effective. Furthermore, 20 of the managers mentioned an opposite type of behavior--that of using a "firm, aggressive, no-nonsense approach.
These results can be interpreted in one of three ways. The women may feel that holding back and avoiding coming on too strong is responsible for their effectiveness, whereas the managers are more impressed with their aggressiveness and no-nonsense approach. The latter is seen as more unusual behavior for women and is thus perhaps commented on more frequently by men. Another explanation is that the male managers perceive some of the women as being firm and aggressive, when those women themselves may feel that they are holding back--in other words, there may be some discrepancy in a woman's and a man's conception of aggressive" or "dominating," as a result of the unfeminine connotations of such behavior in the past, and have thus attempted to avoid an authoritarian approach.
As was the case for blue-collar employees, the most frequently mentioned approach or tactic which the managers felt made the whitecollar women effective was to "learn the job as well as possible to become technically competent." A number of managers admitted that male employees are likely to be skeptical of the ability of a woman to perform a formerly-male job adequately. Therefore, the woman who . was technically well-qualified was more likely to gain the respect of her male peers and subordinates.
A number of managers also mentioned the importance of establishing good rapport with subordinates. Obviously, this is a desirable behavior in a manager of either sex, but many managers felt that the target women they supervised made a special effort along this line. Related to this is the frequently-mentioned approach which we classified as being "tactful, avoiding coming on too strong." Perhaps the category "positive, friendly attitude" described similar behavior in many cases.
The two managers who mentioned the importance of the woman being "decisive" to ensure her effectiveness seemed to infer that being indecisive and wishy-washy was a normal female characteristic. Presumably, therefore, the woman should be very direct and decisive in the way she carries out her managerial role. This may be the same kind of behavior managers were thinking of who said that the effective woman uses a "firm, aggressive, no-nonsense approach. As one manager described the approach of a subordinate female supervisor of his, whom he thought was very effective:
"She has good, firm control of the group. She leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that she is in charge. She can take a strong stand on a point when necessary.'
A few managers mentioned the approach of "keeps her emotions under control." However, other evidence available to the interviewer indicated that this may not have required any special effort on the part of the woman; rather, it seemed more likely that such a manager held the stereotype that women tend to be emotional, and therefore thought that it was unusual that the particular woman he supervised did not show this emotionality. Page 17
Other managers mentioned the role adjustment problem experienced by some supervisory females:
"Switching from a secretary role to a supervisory role was very hard for Jane (fictitious name) and for me. It's been too easy to fall back into old roles. Looking back on it, I think it would have been better for Jane to have changed work groups when she got the promotion."
Along the same lines, another manager commented:
"Females are handicapped most by their own self-concepts
These difficulties are similar to those mentioned by a number of the target females who discussed conflict they had experienced in adjusting to their new roles.
The interviewers talked with 64 male peers of the target women, including 44 co-workers of white-collar women and 20 co-workers of bluecollar women. Ages ranged from the twenties to the sixties, with the majority aged 30 to 49 years. No significant correlations were found between age and responses to questions concerning attitudes and performance.
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE TARGET WOMEN
The initial questions peers were asked concerned their attitudes toward the presence of women in traditionally-male jobs and their perceptions of others' attitudes. Responses to the questions about their own feelings were quite varied. Some of the peers gave short, ambiguous answers that were difficult to code without looking at other responses, while others related the question directly to the target woman with whom they worked.
A number of the men stated that they felt fine about the particular women involved, but that the job was not suitable for most women. Co-workers of blue-collar females often commented that they wouldn't want their wives doing this kind of work, but if a woman wanted such a job and could do the work, she should have the opportunity. Other men specified that they felt "okay" about women being in the type of job in which they were working together, but not in certain other types of jobs.
Looking at all the peer responses together, over 60 percent felt generally or very positive about women in traditionally-male jobs, and only about 10 percent were clearly negative. However, a breakdown of responses by collar-color shows that all of the negative feelings were expressed by blue-collar peers:
Thirty percent of the blue-collar peers were negative about women in these types of jobs and another 35 percent had mixed feelings. Only one of the blue-collar peers seemed to have genuinely positive feelings about the employment of women in his work group. This man was working with three women and about 30 men in a drafting room which had been allmale until two or three years before. He saw the movement of women into this work as a very positive thing:
"I'm glad to see some women in the drafting room. It changes
The co-workers of white-collar women were clearly more positive about the change, with 75 percent of their comments rated as favorable. Still, the male peers of a female manager would express very positive attitudes about the particular woman who was in a job at peer level to themselves, while remaining very concerned about the affirmative action program in general. As one man said:
"I'm afraid that women are going to get promotions not because
Responses to questions which dealt with how peers thought others felt about women in male-oriented jobs were generally straightforward. Some peers attributed more negative attitudes to others than to them, selves, an indication that they may have been hesitant to express their own negative feelings directly in response to the first question, especially if being interviewed by the female researcher, and projected their true feelings into their answers concerning how others felt.
Only about 35 percent of the total group suggested that others' attitudes were positive, whereas over 60 percent had said they were positive themselves. Again, there was considerable difference in the perceptions of the white- and blue-collar peers. Forty-five percent of the blue-collar peers felt others were generally or very negative, while only about 15 percent of white-collar peers suggested others were negative:
It should be noted that of the six negative responses recorded to the first question, five were expressed to the male interviewer, indicating that peers may have felt inhibited about expressing their own negative attitudes to the female interviewer. In the second question, peers interviewed by the male interviewer perceived others' attitudes as generally or very negative about as often as they had expressed negative attitudes themselves. On the other hand, the female interviewer recorded 10 attributions of negative attitudes compared with just one self-report of a negative feeling toward women in formerly-male jobs.
PERFORMANCE OF THE TARGET WOMEN
Peers were asked several questions pertaining to the performance of women in traditionally-male jobs. First, an attempt was made to gain a general idea about how well co-workers felt a particular woman was performing. Then peers were asked to identify the target women's strengths and weeknesses in performing different aspects of the job. A third question related to peers' perceptions of any differences in the way the target women and most men performed the job.
Eighty-five percent of the peers reported the women to be performing as well as an average man or better; even with blue-collar women, 75 percent of the peers rated the performance of the women as at least equal to that of the average man:
However, 10 percent of the blue-collar women were rated as performing very poorly and no members of this group were rated as doing an excellent job, in contrast to 25 percent of the white-collar group.
Sometimes men working with a woman who was admittedly doing well in a traditionally-male job seemed to think this was probably unusual-that most women wouldn't do as well. For example, one man in describing a newly-hired woman in his work group said:
"She is doing a great job--better than most of the men.
There was a wide variety of responses to the questions about aspects of the job not mentioned in other interviews. A substantial proportion gave no response or responses that could not be coded. Concerning aspects of the job the woman performed best, categories receiving the most comments were "technical aspects," "interpersonal relations," and "performs all aspects well." The technical knowledge and human relations aspects of the jobs were mentioned as strengths only for women in white-collar jobs. Concerning aspects of the job performed "least well," the categories receiving the most comments were "technical aspects," "heavy, dirty work," and "interpersonal relations." Among the blue-collar peers, 40 percent mentioned that women did heavy, dirty work least well, and 20 percent said that technical knowledge was a weakness.
When the peers were asked whether women seem to perform the job differently from most men, and in what ways their performance differed, over 40 percent stated there were no differences (table 9). Page 18
(However, the great majority of the "no difference" responses related to white-collar women.) The categories which described most of the identified differences were: problems with mechanical and physical aspects, more conscientious, and more diplomatic. Blue-collar women accounted for 75 percent of the comments relating to mechanical or physical problems and over 70 percent of the remarks about greater conscientiousness.
Some of the peers discussed differences that were interesting, but hard to categorize. For example, a man in a blue-collar job said the woman he worked with "tries to prove she's better than a man, instead of operating as an equal, and this causes tension." Another peer of a blue-collar woman noted that she makes her work "into a piece of art, rather than a functional product." A comment related more to informal relations between male and female co-workers also came from a blue-collar peer. He noticed that the woman he works with is "leery of getting too close to the guys because of rumor, and is standoffish."
A peer of a white-collar woman claimed "She shows positive prejudice toward other women--helps them out more than the men. Another peer of white-collar women said he resented the fact that "A woman can influence a decision-maker more easily than a man." Along the same lines, one man felt that, because of a particular woman's extraordinary attractiveness, "she is seen first as a woman and then as a professional." This co-worker went on to question whether the woman is trying to capitalize on her physical appearance to the detriment of her professional capabilities. He said:
"She may be more persuasive and have more opportunities
Some of the differences noted between male and female job performance overlapped with responses to the next question, which dealt with difficulties the women experienced.
DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED
Peers discussed many different kinds of special difficulties the women experienced, but about 35 percent said the women had no special difficulties that men didn't have (table 10).
The most frequently-mentioned difficulty related to the "physical demands of the jobs, which--surprisingly--were cited as a difficulty for women in white-collar as well as blue-collar jobs. In some cases, this
difficulty was attributed to female supervisors who worked with field crews. In one white-collar situation, physical demands were mentioned as a difficulty in reference to a female engineer; her peers thought she would find it more difficult than most of the men to climb out on cat-walks to inspect machinery in a power plant. For women in bluecollar jobs, physical demands as a difficulty almost always referred to situations involving physical strength and stamina.
The second most frequently-mentioned difficulty was "lack of cooperation." This was attributed to women in white-collar jobs in all but one case. Usually this referred to a woman in a staff or managerial position whose job required coordinated efforts with others at her level or above. Since these others were likely to be men, including some with negative views about the capabilities of women, the woman's peers thought that she was handicapped in getting needed cooperation in some situations.
"Harassment" as a difficulty received only three mentions from peers, and in only one case was this in reference to a woman in a bluecollar job--yet this was the most frequently-mentioned difficulty which the women themselves said they experienced, and it was especially emphasized by women in blue-collar jobs.
Some other difficulties mentioned by peers had to do with people's expectations of women in male-oriented jobs:
"She has to put up with assumptions that she's a secretary."
"She's under closer scrutiny for imperfections."
"People expect a 'super woman' and are critical of just
"It's hard to accept aggressiveness in a woman, even when it's appropriate."
CHANGE IN ATTITUDES OR
Peers were also asked whether the presence of a woman in a traditionally-male position had changed people's attitudes or behavior toward her. About 22 percent of the peers said the woman was not treated with more respect:
Several examples of the kind of greater respect shown, however, reveal that respect may turn into protectiveness, which may hinder a woman seeking to perform her job competently:
"Sometimes people don't give her a fair share of the work and underestimate her physical ability."
"Her supervisor would go easier on her than a guy if something went wrong.
EFFECTIVE APPROACHES OR BEHAVIORS
The final question asked of peers dealt with their observations of approaches or behaviors used by their female co-workers which seemed to contribute to their effectiveness in traditionally-male jobs. As might be expected, these differed quite a bit for women in white-collar and blue-collar jobs.
For the blue-collar women, the most frequently-mentioned approach had to do with work attitudes and demonstrations of competence:
When women worked hard and learned their jobs well, peers were likely to respect them and see them as effective members of the work group. They were likely to be especially bitter if they thought a woman was taking advantage and not doing her full share of the work. Page 19
Those peers of blue-collar women who mentioned such behaviors as "stands up for herself," "has sense of humor," and "friendly, cooperative" may have been referring to reactions to present or potential harassment that was so frequently mentioned by the target women themselves.
For the women in white-collar jobs, "works hard" was also the most frequently-mentioned behavior:
Evidently, women in any type of traditionally-male job who seem to be trying hard are likely to gain the respect of their co-workers. Similarly, a friendly, considerate attitude is also seen as contributing to effectiveness.
The use of a democratic style as an effective behavior was not mentioned in as high a percentage of interviews with peers as it was in the interviews with the target women themselves. In fact, the use of a "firm, assertive" approach was mentioned with almost equal frequency. Several peers of female managers said that the respective woman was effective because she left no doubt in anyone's mind that she knew what she was doing and that she was in charge. In fact, the lack of assertiveness was sometimes cited as contributing to ineffectiveness. For example, one peer of a woman in a traditionally-male staff job described what he saw as a weakness in her job performance:
"I think she probably knows the job very well, but she
On the other side of the coin, some of the peers saw firm, assertive behavior as undesirable in a female in a professional or managerial job. For example, one man working in a peer-level position to a woman in management, described the problem as follows:
"Sometimes she comes on too strong, and this irritates
Another man working for the first time with a woman in the work group described non-assertive behavior as desirable in this indirect
"She really knows her stuff, but she's not a 'know it all.'
Perhaps behavior described as "flexible" provides the key to effectiveness of women in traditionally-male jobs as seen by their peers. In several of the interviews, peers said that a target woman was firm and assertive when the situation called for that kind of behavior, and yet used a friendly, considerate, and democratic approach most of the time.
Interviews were conducted with 56 subordinates of women in formerly-male managerial or supervisory positions. Thirty of these interviews were conducted by the female interviewer and 26 by the male interviewer; of the interviewees, 23 were female and 33 were male, ranging in age from under 20 years to over 60, with the average at about 35 years.
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE
Early in the interviews, the subordinates were asked how they felt about having a female boss in a job which had always been filled by a man in the past. The majority of the responses fell in the "generally positive" category; in fact, even if the "mixed feelings" category is regarded as negative, there are still about twice as many positive as negative respondents:
While the male subordinates were less positive in their feelings than were the women, the differences between the two groups are not as great as might have been expected. Nor was there any significant difference in the pattern of responses given to either the male or female interviewer.
A few of the men whose attitudes were less than positive about having a female boss said that, while they did not mind reporting to a woman, they did resent the fact that the EEO pressures to place women in managerial position were cutting off opportunities for men like themselves. In fact, some of the men admitted that they themselves had probably been the top candidates for the supervisory jobs which their female bosses now hold.
Most of the respondents said that they didn't care one way or another whether their boss was a man or a woman--the only thing that really counted was whether or not the supervisor was effective. In fact, negative attitudes seemed to reflect the respondent's judgement of the supervisor's competence rather than their reaction to the idea of having a female supervisor as such.
When asked how they perceived the reactions of others to the idea of having a female supervisor, the subordinates attributed attitudes to others that were somewhat less positive than those they reported for themselves. In this case, the modal response was "mixed feelings," and the responses were rather evenly distributed above and below that mid-point category on the scale. It was clear, however, that the men were again more negative than the women. It was not at all unusual for a male respondent to say that it didn't bother him at all to have a female supervisor, but that it bothered some of the other men in his work group very much. It was often difficult to determine whether or not the person responding in this way was projecting his own feelings onto others.
RATING THE PERFORMANCE
Remarkably high performance ratings were given to the female supervisors or managers by their subordinates:
Almost 70 percent of the subordinates felt that their supervisors were doing either a good job or an excellent job. While these ratings did not differ greatly for the male and female respondents, the responses to this question given the male interviewer were much more favorable than those given the female interviewer; for example, of the 18 respondents who rated their female supervisor as doing an "excellent job," 15 were interviewed by the male. On the other Page 20
hand, of the 15 persons who said their supervisor was just doing
Significantly, when a subordinate seemed lukewarm about the performance of the female boss--a response coded as "doing fairly well"--very often he or she would add "She's doing as well as most male supervisors." It seemed that the woman in a supervisory or managerial job had to be performing better than most male supervisors in order to earn a rating of "good" or "excellent."
The subordinates were also asked to describe the specific aspects of the job that their female supervisor performed best and least well. The most frequently mentioned aspect of the job thought to be performed best was the extent to which the supervisor was seen as having good knowledge of the technical aspects of the work to be performed (table 11). This may be a reflection of the fact that a number of the women appointed to the supervisory jobs had worked in the respective fields for many years and were familiar with the technical aspects of the work.
The second most frequently mentioned asset was that the supervisor "explains things well--doesn't just give orders." This approach to the job was also mentioned frequently by the women supervisors and managers themselves. As indicated earlier, many of the women said they made a special effort to keep their subordinates well-informed and to explain orders in greater detail than most male managers seemed to have done in the past. In the case of the question on aspects of the job performed least well, over half the respondents either gave no answer or gave a response which did not fit one of the categories in table 12. In a great many instances, the subordinate said there was no aspect of the job that was not being performed well. With regard to specific shortcomings, it was interesting to note that the aspect of the job most often seen as being performed best--the technical aspect--was also most often mentioned as being performed least well.
Another weakness mentioned by several subordinates had to do with showing favoritism.
"She values close friends too much and may have more favorites than a man would."
There were other critical comments relating to the woman's manner of dealing with subordinates. One man noted:
"She doesn't like to knock people and hesitates to write up criticisms of her subordinates. She will tell them, but not report it through the formal channels."
TABLE 12. ASPECTS OF THE JOB THE FEMALE SUPERVISORS WERE SEEN AS PERFORMING "LEAST WELL"
A female subordinate felt her boss "got too involved with people." On the other hand, a male subordinate was outspoken about the lack of concern his female boss showed.
"She's directive and demanding. She lets people know about
In summary, it is important to point out again that the shortcomings described here evidently did not outweigh the positive aspects of performance as perceived by the subordinates.
DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE
Each subordinate was asked if the female supervisor performed her job in a manner which was different from the way male supervisors had performed it in the past. When the subordinates did cite such differences, they were almost always favorable ones (table 13). In other words, they felt that their female supervisors "show more respect for subordinates," "are more considerate, " "more diplomatic," or "works harder." The only responses which might have had a negative connotation were a few to the effect that the supervisor was "more demanding" or "more sensitive." Those who claimed the female supervisor was "more demanding" often seemed pleased, however. The increased demands were often discussed in terms of added responsibility which enhanced the subordinates' self-esteem. Of those who mentioned that their supervisor was "more sensitive," it was not always clear whether this was seen as positive or negative.
The many people who said their female supervisor showed more interest in and respect for subordinates than did most male supervisors often added that she gave them more responsibility, helping them to develop on the job, so that they themselves would be better qualified for future promotions. A closely-related performance difference, equally often mentioned, was that the supervisor was "more considerate" than most male supervisors. By this the subordinates usually meant that the supervisor seemed to treat each person as an individual and showed concern for each subordinate's needs.
The third most frequently-mentioned performance difference was the subordinates' belief that their female supervisors worked harder than did most male supervisors. Perhaps this reflected the women's determination to prove their ability to perform the job in a superior manner.
TABLE 13. OBSERVED DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE OF FEMALE SUPERVISORS AS COMPARED WITH MALE SUPERVISORS
(Totals are greater than number interviewed because interviewee ( often mentioned more than one difference.)
PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED
Thirty-two of the 56 subordinates felt that their female supervisors experienced no difficulties that most male supervisors would not encounter:
Of the difficulties mentioned, the most frequent was that "outsiders don't want to deal with her." By this they meant that people elsewhere in the company, as well as customers, suppliers, and others, sometimes showed their prejudices by treating the female supervisor with less respect than they would a male supervisor. These outsiders were sometimes seen as doubting that the woman actually had as much authority as would normally be involved in a supervisory or managerial position. Obviously, this would be handicapping to the female incumbent of that position.
The second most frequently-mentioned difficulty was that she "lacks technical knowledge that most men have.' This difficulty, which was alluded to almost exclusively by male subordinates, was likely to be mentioned only in the few cases where a woman was put in charge of a group performing mechical or technical functions. Very often, this supervisory job was a form of training assignment for the woman. Similar assignments were given to male trainees who could be expected to have the same problem. Therefore, even though this was a genuine handicapping factor for the female, it was not a difficulty which should necessarily have been associated with her sex as such. Page 21
The two subordinates whose responses were classified in the "being watched" category referred to the pressure the woman probably experienced because of her visibility in the traditionally-male position. They said that people sometimes looked for behavior that would not be expected in a male supervisor, or that they were looking for mistakes so that they could say "I told you so. One respondent said that he felt it was more difficult for his female supervisor, because other men expected management to favor the woman. In other words, he said that most men thought "she can get away with murder because she is a female.
Only six subordinates mentioned the fact that the female boss doesn't get the same cooperation from secretaries and other employees that a male supervisor would command. While this was the difficulty most frequently mentioned by the target women themselves, it often had to do with interdepartmental affairs of which subordinates might be less aware.
A few of the male subordinates said that they felt the female supervisors actually had advantages, rather than difficulties. In one case, for example, the male subordinate said that, compared with male supervisors he had had in the past, his new boss had the advantage of not being "one of the boys." He thought that the woman could therefore be more aloof from the group than a male supervisor, and thus could be more objective and more effective. Another man felt that female supervisors had the advantage of knowing they would be promoted whether or not they performed well, because of equal opportunity goals.
CHANGE IN ATTITUDE OR BEHAVIOR
Each of the subordinates was asked if he or she observed any significant changes in people's attitudes or behavior toward their supervisor or manager after she had been appointed to the position. A majority reported that they saw no changes of any significance in people's attitudes or behavior:
Two other reactions were noted with some frequency, however; nine people said they had noticed that others treated the female manager with more respect than they had before, and an equal number said that they had noticed attitudes or reactions reflecting resentment, which were usually attributed to other male employees.
With regard to reactions reflecting respect, two of the subordinates interviewed said that other female employees seemed to have less respect for the female manager since she accepted the job. They attributed such reactions to the feeling that the woman had "overstepped her bounds" in moving into a man's position. However, one woman noted that there was no change in attitude toward her boss when there should have been: :
"Betty (fictitious name) is not put on the same level as other
Another change that was mentioned had to do with the impact of promotion on a target females' friends.
"Some people who used to be her friends don't confide in her
The four subordinates who remarked that the most significant change they observed was that the "men now watch their language, were all subordinates of a newly-appointed female blue-collar supervisor. One or two also admitted that the men felt very strange in dealing with a woman as their boss, because her appointment had been completely unprecedented.
EFFECTIVE APPROACHES OR BEHAVIORS OBSERVED
The last question in the interviews with subordinates asked them to describe any behaviors or approaches that their female supervisor or manager used that they felt made her effective. Behaviors described by subordinates were very similar to those described by managers, peers, and by the target women themselves. The most frequently-noticed approach was that the woman was effective in the supervisory role because she used a "democratic, participative style" in dealing with subordinates (table 14). A number of subordinates said that their female manager gave them much more information, more
TABLE 14. OBSERVED APPROACHES USED BY THE FEMALE MANAGERS TO INCREASE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
(Total number of items mentioned is greater than number interviewed because many subordinates described more than one approach.)
responsibility, and involved them more in decision-making than had their previous male managers. Several male subordinates also added that, they felt much more involved and more highly motivated than they ever had in the past because their manager had adopted this approach.
The behavior mentioned with second greatest frequency was that the female manager used a more "friendly, considerate" approach in dealing with subordinates than had most of their previous managers. Some added that the female manager was more tactful in dealing with subordinates and seemed to be more sensitive to individual differences in feelings and reactions.
A behavior that seemed almost opposite to the democratic or friendly approach was also mentioned quite frequently--that is, the "firm, directive approach," which was said to account for the effectiveness of a number of the female managers. In several cases, the subordinates added that their manager made it clear that she was in charge and that she would tolerate no nonsense. In one case, , a male subordinate said that his manager might be using this approach because another woman manager in the same department had failed because she was too timid and senitive. He said that the men had never really accepted that woman as the boss. In fact, he added, when the men saw how timidly the woman was behaving, they "really put her through the grinder."
A number of subordinates described managerial behavior which incorporated both the democratic and the assertive approaches. The female manager used the democratic, participative approach when it appeared to be desirable, but could also be very firm and directive when a situation seemed to call for that kind of behavior. One man said that his female manager delegated responsibility, but would not tolerate slipshod work; rather, she was very assertive and directive when she felt that a particular subordinate was not performing an assignment as capably as she thought he or she could. Several times subordinates mentioned that the female manager could be friendly and considerate, but at the same time had to be firm and demanding enough that people didn't take advantage of her:
"Her manner and personal appearance are very business-like. She keeps a distance and yet can get down to our level in discussing problems.'
"She's very good at positive criticism. She has strong views and is results-oriented, yet she's understanding."
The "straightforward, doesn't try to bluff" behavior was usually mentioned in the context of a situation where the female manager did not have as much technical know-how as some of her subordinates. The interviewees sometimes admitted that an attempt to bluff by a woman would be considered more reprehensible than it would if exhibited by a male manager, because subordinates were likely to be more vigilant in looking for weaknesses in the female manager.
The observation that the manager "works hard, learns the job, is determined to do wel1" was also mentioned quite often by the other groups interviewed. This may reflect the felt need on the part of these women to do everything they could to perform well, a need which may diminish when it becomes commonplace to find women in managerial positions that had formerly been filled only by men. Perhaps this kind of reaction would also account for the observation by seven of the subordinates that their manager "makes a special effort to be fair." Page 22
POLICY AND PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS
GUIDEPOSTS FOR THE FUTURE
The experiences of the 10 companies, the nature of the problems they encountered, and the accumulated wisdom embodied in their efforts to solve these problems have some important practical implications for other organizations attempting the placement of women in traditionallymale jobs. Some of the clearest and most significant of these implications are as follows:
The EE0 program must be monitored from a central vantage-
The companies making the most progress in providing equal opportunities for women in jobs of all kinds had an effective individual or unit at central staff level who provided guidance to managers and monitored their performance in meeting EEO goals. This position or unit had enough status in the organization to command the respect and cooperation of managers from first-line supervisors to top executives.
A key problem in getting women selected and placed in traditionallymale jobs had to do with the influence or "clout" of the affirmative action program. Some EEO coordinators were relatively powerless to do anything but encourage the hiring of a woman when openings came up in different departments. In other companies, the EEO coordinator had been given the power to withhold budgeting for the requested additoonal employee in a given department until certain affirmative action goals had been met. In yet another situation, the EEO coordinator (who was female in this case) depended on her own influence and educational efforts to sell the affirmative action program.
Those individuals or units at staff level who seemed to be getting best results functioned as an integral part of the total personnel or human resources operation. In this way, day-to-day attention could be focused on the recruitment, selection, training, career planning and other personnel programs for women as a continuing part of overall personnel acitvities. When the EEO program was thus integrated into the human resources function, but with a specific person (or persons) given responsibility, there was more cooperation in planning and accomplishing long- and short-term goals. On the other hand, when the affirmative action unit was isolated and seen as functioning primarily in an advisory capacity, it seemed to have significantly less impact.
In addition to spearheading programs to facilitate integration, and providing consulting services to managers who are attempting to achieve EEO goals, a most important responsibility of the affirmative action unit is to keep score. In other words, the EEO coordinator
performs the same kind of function in this area that the accountants perform with regard to financial results. If no one is keeping score and providing feedback to managers, little progress is likely to be made.
There appeared to be a strong relationship in the respective companies studied between the amount of progress being made in providing equal opportunities for all and the degree of visibility given to the affirmative action program. A strong stand by top management probably had more influence in this regard than any program an EEO coordinator could introduce. The impact of such policy-setting was even greater where middle and first-line managers were convinced of the sincerity and personal interest of top management in supporting changes necessary to provide equal opportunity for women. In some companies, the stand taken by top management with regard to the EEO program was so strong that some middle and first-line managers admitted that they could not expect to be around very long if they couldn't adjust to the new policies. In other cases, managers indicated that their performance in achieving EEO goals was considered to be an important factor in their overall appraisal as a manager.
A number of techniques were used to create awareness of the EEO program throughout the organization. Publicity in the house organ certainly helped. Frequent articles featuring women in traditionallymale work roles helped to call attention to the program. Some companies had conducted "awareness" seminars or training workshops focusing on the changing role of women in society, placing the emphasis on increasing awareness of sex role stereotypes and the way language reflects and reinforces these stereotypes.
The responses to "awareness" training were mixed. In general, studies have shown that training which involves role-playing and behavior modeling has a greater likelihood of effecting change, because people have a chance to experiment with and practice new behaviors. With this in mind, the researchers would recommend that companies incorporate behavioral goals if they choose to implement "awareness" or related types of programs.
In one of the smaller companies, the EEO coordinator tried to accomplish the goals usually established for awareness training by holding informal interviews with individual managers throughout the company. These managers were also informed of new policies and programs at the same time. Reactions to these interviews seemed to be quite positive, but the success of this approach may have partly reflected the fact that the coordinator was a very competent woman who seemed to gain respect and cooperation from everyone with whom she came in contact. Her personal exchange with managers and supervisors also provided these men with a model of a woman in a traditionally-male job and allowed for
a first-hand experience of dealing with a woman as an equal in the work context. In general, companies which had competent professional women of this type as EEO coordinators seemed to be reaping benefits from the positive experiences male managers had in working with these women.
A serious problem relating to program acceptance which cropped up rather consistently was overt hostility or negative attitudes on the part of blue-collar supervisors of women in formerly-male jobs. A hostile foreman can have a very damaging effect on the program because the men under him are likely to follow his example. Besides involving foremen in "awareness" training sessions or engaging them in one-to-one interviews, companies did not seem to be actively involved in seeking solutions to this problem. However, a study conducted by B. O'Farrell in a large utility company provides some interesting observations on this problem. 29/ She noted that most blue-collar supervisors are not asked for their inputs or help in planning the integration of women in craft jobs. The situation is more or less forced on them, and they often end up having to take extra time and effort to orient the women. This naturally causes resentment and throws off their regular work routine. An obvious solution is to apply a basic principle relating to the effective implementation of an organizational change. That is, the supervisors should be involved in the planning of integration programs that will affect their work groups. In addition, they should be provided with appropriate support in the form of the extra time and resources needed to enable them to devote adequate attention to the proper orientation and on-the-job training of women.
Special efforts are needed to recruit women for many of the blue-collar jobs
A ubiquitous problem was the lack of female interest in many bluecollar jobs--particularly those with such unattractive features as rotating shifts, heavy or dirty tasks, or regular exposure to such outside elements as weather or a hostile public. Almost invariably, special recruitment efforts had to be made if any success at all was to be achieved in integrating women in jobs of this kind. One company found that it met with greater success in retaining women in these jobs by recruiting from outside the company. Another found that students enrolled in junior colleges provided a good source of candidates for such jobs. The same company then used women who had been successful in such jobs as sources of additional recruits by asking them for names of friends or acquaintances likely to have similar interests or skills.
29/ B. O'Farrell, "Affirmative Action for Women in Craft Jobs: Change in the Small Industrial Workshop," Unpublished report of a study conducted in a large public utility company in the Northeast, 1975. (This report was also presented as a paper at a joint meeting of the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems held in San Francisco in August, 1975.)
One important decision that must be made when recruiting women for craft jobs is whether to use a hard-sell, persuasive approach or to give a realistic view of the job. On the one hand, some employment managers and interviewers maintained that if they did not do a good selling job, they would fail to meet even modest quotas in integrating many bluecollar work groups. On the other hand, women who are not given a realistic picture of what the job entails before accepting it, may perform poorly and quit after a very short time. Thus, not only will the company fail to achieve EE0 goals in the short run, but the program may be jeopardized in the long run because stereotypes about the suitability of women for such jobs will be reinforced. For this reason, companies which made a special effort to provide female recruits with a realistic picture of job requirements seemed to be experiencing the most success in integrating blue-collar jobs with undesirable features.
Some companies used approaches designed to reach the entire community and thereby stimulate women's interest in traditionally-male jobs of all kinds. One company made an effort to publish success stories of women in these jobs in the local newspapers. Other companies sponsored programs in elementary and high schools designed to expose girls to a variety of role models, and to make guidance counselors aware of the new career opportunities for women.
In almost all the companies studied, some kind of "job posting" program was used to publicize job openings internally. In a few cases, extra efforts were made to describe the nature of the open jobs in some detail, to give their availability widespread publicity through such media as the plant newspaper, and to encourage women to bid on jobs that had in the past been held exclusively by men. If a woman who bid on such a job was found not to be qualified, an EEO coordinator might provide follow-up counseling to point out where she might get needed training to qualify for such a job. Or the woman might be encouraged to bid on another job.
Selection and placement of women in traditionally-male jobs are critical functions
Assuming recruitment efforts are successful, problems involving selection and placement decisions then become critical. Evidence from this study clearly indicates that the initial selections and placements should be made with special care when attempts are being made to introduce women into an all-male occupation or work group for the first time. Nothing seems to change attitudes as much as a favorable experience with a competent woman; on the other hand, a poor experience can have a damaging effect in reinforcing negative biases about the capabilities of women in traditionally-male jobs.
In the case of blue-collar jobs, attitudes toward work and interest in the jobs themselves seemed to be the most important factors in contributing to the woman's successful adjustment. Those women with conscientious attitudes toward work--that is, a determination to work hard, learn the job, and fully earn the relatively high pay involved, were generally seen as performing well and were most likely to be accepted by the men in the work group. In addition, the ability to withstand the initial hostility of the men should be taken into account in selecting the first woman to be placed in an all-male group.
Obviously, all women selected for assignment to traditionallymale jobs cannot be expected to have these "superwoman" traits or relatively little progress will be made in achieving integration goals. However, if the first woman placed in a work group has these characteristics, it can pave the way for the introduction and acceptance of more average women who can take their place in the group along with average men.
Even in the white-collar jobs, however, there is clearly a danger in selecting exceptional women only and institutionalizing the expectation that the woman in a traditionally-male job must perform exceedingly well in order to be seen as competent and equal to the average male. The more objective the criteria used for selection and promotion, the more companies can guard against such a development. It is also likely that as the number of women in such jobs increases, they will be less noticed and scrutinized, and co-workers will not be expecting perfection.
Another selection and placement issue has to do with where to place a woman. Some of the companies have made an effort to place blue-collar women with a cooperative supervisor and a few companies have also been careful not to place white-collar women in jobs where they may lack experience and knowledge. Again, these practices may be useful initially but must not be continued indefinitely, if women are to assume a truly equal role in the workplace.
One company strongly recommended placing blue-collar women in locations where there is already at least one woman, or else placing two women together in previously all-male work settings. This approach resulted in higher retention rates for the women.
In white-collar situations, the promotion of a long-service woman from a clerical position into a supervisory role sometimes caused strains for both the woman and her co-workers, since the transition involved a new set of informal as well as formal expectations. Even if these women performed their official responsibilities in a competent manner, their informal behavior often had unseen consequences in terms of limiting their opportunities for further growth and development. Some companies made a point of changing the work group when a clerical woman was promoted, a practice which seemed to make the transition easier. Page 23
In selecting women for managerial positions, those companies using "assessment center" programs seemed to be getting the best results, for three reasons. First, selection errors were less likely to be made because the performance of candidates in simulated managerial situations could be observed directly. Second, each woman candidate had an opportunity to demonstrate her ability to handle managerial assignments. Third, a skeptical manager could serve as a judge in such a center, and thus observe first-hand that women can perform capably in managerial roles.
Follow-up counseling with help to maximize the success rate of newly-placed women in traditionally-male jobs
Most affirmative action coordinators closely followed the progress of women placed in traditionally-male jobs, especially those who were the first to enter an all-male setting. In this way, problems could be discovered at an early stage and alleviated before they had a damaging effect.
Emotional strains were most likely to have a deleterious effect on blue-collar women, since some were exposed to a great deal of hostility from supervisors and co-workers. Serious problems stemming from such strains were most likely to occur in companies which had not attempted to provide any organized support for these women. Counseling often helped greatly, and specially-arranged group meetings sometimes provided an outlet or forum for airing feelings, sharing problems, and exchanging ideas and alternatives for handling tough situations. Support groups of this kind would seem to be especially valuable in the initial breakingin period.
White-collar women experienced more subtle kinds of strain, but they too could benefit from such support groups. With regard to counseling, it is probably less important that the EEO coordinator take the initiative for providing this to women in white-collar jobs than it is in the blue-collar area. On the other hand, it is helpful to have someone available with designated responsibility for such counseling for those women in professional or managerial jobs who might like to discuss and get advice on a problem.
6. Special training programs are sometimes needed to insure the successful integration of women in traditionally- male jobs
A problem faced by all of the companies attempting to employ women in blue-collar jobs was the lack of available women with the necessary interests, knowledge, and skills, both mechanical and physical. Since many men start their working careers with some knowledge and skill in these areas, companies have found that informal, on-the-job training often provides sufficient preparation for newlyhired males. This informal approach is not likely to provide adequate
training for women, however. In the first place, co-workers usually assume that the newly-hired people have mechanical backgrounds--but even more important is the fact that women may be excluded from peer group training because of negative attitudes toward them on the part of the men.
To obviate these difficulties, some companies designed special "vestibule" type training programs for women selected for mechanical jobs. Even in some cases where newly-hired men were given formal training before being placed on the job, a pre-training program for women was used to compensate for their lack of previous mechanical experience. These special programs for women were said to have several important advantages. For one thing, they helped to acquaint the women with unfamiliar job tasks in a more protective climate than the on-the-job situation would afford. Secondly, the training would help the women to perform more adequately when placed on the job. When they performed well, their male working associates were more likely to accept them. And, when they were accepted, they were more likely to be given the same kind of on-the-job training and help which the men gave each other.
Another problem for many blue-collar women had to do with their ability to cope with the physical demands involved in their new jobs. One such woman had embarked on a self-initiated strength-building course, so that she could feel more confident in accomplishing the physical aspects of her job. A course of this kind could be offered by the firm for women interested, or currently employed, in physicallydemanding jobs.
At the white-collar level, a few companies sponsored supervisory training workshops especially designed for women in managerial positions while in others, the women were simply included in the regular supervisory training programs run for all managers. Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. In the separate program, the training was not likely to be linked to actual opportunities for promotion or transfer, so that the women felt frustrated; moreover, it was sometimes seen as "for women only," which gave it less credibility as a valid growth experience. The integrated approach, on the other hand, runs the risk of overlooking some women by not giving them special attention. Also, in a number of companies which promised to integrate women into their overall development programs, the women benefited very little because the development effort was essentially non-existent.
Where separate programs were provided, they usually included special features in addition to the usual supervisory training curriculum--i.e., consideration of such issues as: changes in formal and informal role expectations of women in management; sex-role stereotyping; and ineffective "feminine" behavior patterns. Assertiveness training, behavior modeling, or role-playing were also used effectively in some cases to give women a chance to practice alternative behaviors.
An issue related to training was the degree to which supervisors provided performance appraisal feedback to the target women. A subtle and perhaps unintended difference in managers' treatment of men and women was their apparent reluctance to give the women constructive feedback about their performance in their new jobs. This task may have been neglected out of discomfort or disinterest rather than with malicious intent. In any case, the effects can be serious for the woman involved, because she has no way of knowing when or how to change her behavior in order to be successful. EEO coordinators should strongly encourage managers to provide regular feedback to women placed in traditionally-male jobs. Informal or formal training in how to give feedback effectively would be useful to most supervisors in their dealings with both male and female subordinates.
Job re-design to accommodate female workers must be approached cautiously
An issue which came up in both white- and blue-collar jobs had to do with differences in responsibilities given to men and women in the same job. In blue-collar jobs, the differences sometimes occurred where there were real discrepancies in the physical or technical capacities of the individuals involved. However, in some craft, and in most whitecollar jobs, the differences in assigned responsibility often seemed to reflect a subtle form of discrimination resulting from stereotyped opinions and beliefs of the managers involved. In several cases, for example, a target woman reported that the manager did not include her in most of his staff meetings, when none of her male peers had ever been excluded from such meetings. Similarly, if a woman in a job of this kind had previously been a secretary, she was usually expected to do her own typing. Obviously, none of the men in similar jobs were ever expected to do their own typing.
The only real solution to problems of this kind seems to be for the EEO coordinator to educate managers and supervisors as to the necessity of assigning responsibility equally to men and women--or at least on the basis of individual differences, rather than sex. Managers should be encouraged to communicate any problems encountered in this area without fear of repercussions. Women in traditionally-male jobs should also be questioned as to any perceived inequities in assigned responsibilities, so that discrimination of this kind could be checked at an early stage.
At blue-collar job levels, similar forms of discrimination were sometimes discovered. O'Farrell, for example, in her study conducted in a public utility company, found that women in certain craft jobs were doing the routine, less skilled work.30 / Although such arrangements often reflect women's actual lack of experience, they can also perpetuate an unequal division of responsibiltiy. O'Farrell recommended accelerated placement of women in highly-skilled work in order to provide role models and to get rid of the stereotype that women don't succeed or aren't interested in these jobs. We discovered similar forms of discrimination in our interviews. In one company, for example, women worked only the day shift in a 24-hour operation, while the men worked on a rotating shift schedule. Needless to say, this difference--seen by the men as a "privilege"--did not help the women to get acceptance from the men.
In some situations, the re-design of jobs did seem to be necessary if appreciable numbers of women were to be employed in them. One company, for example, had engaged in a wholesale scrutiny of all management and supervisory jobs in order to eliminate any unnecessary technical aspects which might arbitrarily exclude women. (In some of the companies, for example, certain of the management jobs had been held only by men with engineering degrees.) The danger in changing a job to accomodate women lies in the fact that such a change could be used to justify changing the salary level of the position, or using the position as a ready-made low-status slot for female managers.
With regard to blue-collar jobs, several companies had developed new equipment to accomodate women workers. However, stocking special equipment labeled as "female" might reinforce the negative stereotypes held by many men about the suitability of women for craft jobs. Instead, a "human engineering" approach to the analysis of equipment might reveal that much of it could be redesigned to make it easier for anyone to use, regardless of his or her size and strength. Replacing all equipment immediately in order to achieve this goal might be prohibitively expensive; as superior equipment is developed, however, it can be purchased as replacements are needed.
A similar approach might be taken to the redesign of the jobs themselves. There are probably a good many undesirable jobs which neither men nor women like, and a substantial proportion of these may involve tasks which cannot be substantially changed to become more attractive, satisfying, and rewarding. On the other hand, there is undoubtedly a number of unattractive jobs that may lend themselves to job redesign which would increase their appeal to both men and
Career planning for women in formerly-male jobs is important.
Since the employment of large numbers of women in traditionallymale jobs is a relatively recent development in most companies, the need for assistance in career planning for women would seem to be great. Our interviews with the target women revealed this need in many cases. One of our interview questions covered career aspirations, and it was not uncommon to find that a woman had no concept of the possible opportunities available to her. In some cases, the manager of a target woman would say that she had the potential to advance in the organization; the woman herself, however, may have expressed the view that it would be unrealistic to think of progressing more than one more level up the ladder.
Most companies had engaged in some kind of educational effort to inform women of the broad range of opportunities available to them. Some ran "Career Days;" others conducted tours for women interested in craft jobs. An approach used in one company was a oneday Life and Career Planning Workshop for both men and women. Another company was actively recruiting female college graduates or women with M.B.A. degrees, and establishing a clearcut career path for them. This company also identified currently-employed women with professional or technical skills who might have growth potential, and launched them on a development course including training, assessment center programs, and/or exposure to different areas of the company.
Other approaches were also used as an aid in educating female employees regarding the broad range of opportunities within the company. Personnel inventories were sometimes used by an affirmative action coordinator to identify women with interest in technical or mechanical type work or in gaining further professional training for a career in a specific area. These women were then counseled concerning the opportunities for getting placed in different jobs or getting further training or education with company support in order to qualify for the kinds of jobs that interested them.
If an opportunity is provided for women in traditional as well as non-traditional jobs to set career goals, then there may be less resentment between these two groups. While many women in traditional roles would choose to remain in those positions, they might have ideas about how to restructure or redefine their jobs to increase their own satisfaction and the amount of respect accorded them by other employees. The company itself should carefully examine traditionally-female jobs to discover where there is room for improving them, with the ultimate goal of eliminating sex-typed and low-status jobs. Page 24
PROBLEMS TO BE ANTICIPATED
The findings from this study suggest a number of potential problem areas. First of all, it seems clear that carefully-selected women are going to be successful in traditionally-male jobs. However, will affirmative action ultimately lead to acceptance of the "average" woman in all kinds of jobs?
Women in certain blue-collar jobs will probably continue to have more problems than women in white-collar positions, because of the nature of the work as well as the attitudes of co-workers and supervisors. More blue-collar women had mixed or negative feelings about their jobs, and more were seen as performing below average.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that job tenure for blue-collar women was longer, on the average, than for white-collar It seems likely that this reflected the fact that many of the blue-collar jobs required more technical knowledge and skill than the ability to perform heavy mechanical or physically-demanding tasks. Although women are more easily integrated into these technical jobs, there is a danger that such blue-collar job categories will soon become over-represented with men.
It also seems possible that some blue-collar jobs may never attract many women. Can the women who are interested in some of these jobs be given a fair chance without providing fairly equal representation of both sexes in the job? If women can be given equal opportunity in a job without equal representation of the sexes, how can we ensure that they are treated fairly?
One of the related questions for the future is whether or not disproportionate representation can exist without discrimination. If women are gradually accepted as capable co-workers in all fields, then it may be that underrepresentation will not always be a sign of discrimination. However, it may take another couple of generations before each individual woman is judged on her own merits in each job. Only then will companies be able to relax their vigilant pursuit of equal representation and pursue the more reasonable goal that women be given a fair chance in all jobs.
Another big question for the future is whether women will be able to breakdown the barriers at upper levels of management. This report indicates that some progress is being made in that direction. Certainly there seems to be a good number of young women aspiring to become officers or presidents of companies, and most of the women interviewed were optimistic about their opportunities in the future.
However, will women really be represented in substantial numbers at the policy-setting level ten or twenty years from now? Some of the people interviewed in this study thought that the toughest roadblock to equal employment opportunity for women lies at the top level, where the outcome will have the most powerful impact on all women in the workplace. Continued underutilization of women in such visible and important positions could block progress permanently. Proper utilization of women in these top ranks, on the other hand, will inspire, encourage, and influence large numbers of women to pursue their individual interests and strive for success in accomplishing their goals.
An unexplored issue which needs attention has to do with the wider social implications of women working in traditionally-male jobs. About half the women in the study had some off-the-job problems related to their new job roles, most of them involving husbands or men friends. These problems may very well disappear with time, or they may encourage gradual changes in expectations of men and women regarding marriage and family. The negative effects of career competition between husband and wife may be offset by the positive effects of fewer financial problems (which are frequently cited as a cause of marital discord).
It is clear that many women are able to combine marriage and a career without experiencing any significant conflict. The unanswered question is how this phenomenon will affect marriage and the family. Do companies need to provide more flexibility for both male and female employees to occasionally or regularly take time off for child care? Will couples choose to "take turns" working and supporting each other, thus allowing individuals to pursue other interests? How will the contract between an individual and the organization be affected by the greater financial flexibility of families with two primary wage-earners? Will companies allow some employees to contract for a shorter work week for less pay, sabbatical leave without pay, more frequent or longer vacations? How will couples and how will companies deal with the mobility and location problems inherent in situations where both individuals are career-oriented?
Organizations with an eye to the future will begin to explore the implications of some of these issues. The dynamic nature of society requires dynamic organizations that can anticipate, rather than simply react to, changes. Stop-gap, temporary, or narrowly-conceived programs are doomed to failure. Comprehensive, well thought-out efforts will pay off in the long run, for the individual, the organization, and society as a whole.
The specific questions asked of each of the target women in the interviews were:
(1) How long have you been in this job?
(2) How do you like the job?
(3) What aspects of the job do you like best?
(4) What sequence of jobs did you hold previously, both in this company and elsewhere?
(5) Do you feel fully qualified to perform the job? qualified as most men in this type of job?)
(6) Do you feel handicapped in any aspect of the job? Do you feel you have any advantages over men in any aspect of the job?
(7) Are there any aspects of the job which men typically perform but which you do not, and vice versa?
(8) Are there any responsibilities which men typically have in this job but which you have not been given?
(9) Have you experienced any difficulties in the job that most men probably do not experience?
(10) Are you given more or less help than are men with comparable experience in order to perform the job properly?
(11) What have been the attitudes of other male employees toward you, including supervisors, peers, and subordinates?
(12) What have been the attitudes of other male employees toward you?
(13) What kinds of approaches or behaviors have you found to be more or less effective than others in carrying out the job properly?
(14) How does your pay in this job compare with that of most men in similar jobs with similar experience?
(15) How satisfied are you with your career progress here to date?
(16) How do you assess your future opportunities here?
(17) What are your career aspirations in this company?
(18) Do you experience any conflict between the job and your outside-work life? (Husband, boy friends, children, relatives)
(19) Do you experience any conflict between your job role and your role as a personal friend and associate of other employees?
The following set of questions was used as a guide to the interviews with the managers:
(1) How do you feel about the equal opportunity program for women?
(2) How do you think others feel about it? Managers--high level, middle, first line.
(3) How do the women in traditionally-male jobs feel about their roles? (Aspects of the job they like best, least.)
(4) How are the women in these jobs performing? (Aspects of the jobs they perform best, least well)
(5) Are there extra costs involved? (Additional training, more supervision, performance inadequacies, etc.) Any savings?
(6) Any responsibilities typically in these jobs but not given to the women?
(7) Do you anticipate any problems in providing continuing career opportunities for women in traditionally-male jobs?
(8) What kinds of procedures, approaches, or behaviors appear to enhance the effectiveness of women in these jobs?
The questions used as a guide in conducting the interviews with peers and subordinates were:
(1) How do you feel about the idea of having a woman, or women, in this type of job?
(2) How do others feel about it?
(3) How does she (they) appear to be performing?
(4) What aspects of the job does she seem to be performing best? least well?
(5) Does the woman (or women) seem to perform the job differently than do most men?
(6) Do the women seem to experience difficulties that most not experience in the job?
(7) Does the fact of a woman holding a traditionally-male job tend to change people's attitudes or behavior toward the woman significantly?
(8) What kinds of behaviors or approaches which the woman in this job uses seem to be more effective than others? (If manager, describe managerial style.) Page 25
Horner, M. S. Femininity and successful achievement: a basic incon sistency. In Feminine personality and conflict. Belmont,
Lynch, Edith M. The executive suite--feminine style. New York: Amacom, 1973.
Manpower Report of the President. U. S. Department of Labor. D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974, 387 pp.
The professional manager.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Megargee, E. I. Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53 (5), 377-382.
Merritt, D. H. Discrimination and the women executive. 1969, 12, 15-22.
Millette, M. A. Women fade to background in group study. Bulletin, January 18, 1976, p. 30.
Miner, John B. Student attitudes toward bureaucratic role prescriptions and prospects for managerial talent shortages. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27, 605-613.
Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 809-826.
Pheterson, G. I., Kiesler, S. B., & Goldberg, P.A. Evaluations of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and
Piacente, B. S., Penner, L. A., Hawkins, H. L., & Cohen, S. L. Evaluation of the performance of experimenters as a function of their sex and competence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 321-329.
Rosen, B. and Jerdee, T. H. Sex sterotyping in the executive suite. Harvard Business Review, 1974, 52 (2), 45-48.
Saleh, S. & Lalljee, M. 1969, 32, 465-471.
Schein, V. E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
Schein, V. E. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 340–344.
Schwartz, E. B. Psychological barriers to increased employment of women. Issues in Industrial Society, 1971, 2, 69-73.
Shaffer, D. R. and Wegley, C. Success orientation and sex-role congruence as determinants of the attractiveness of competent women. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 586-600.
Spence, J. T. and Helmreich, R. Who likes competent women? Applied Psychology, 1972, 2, 197-213.
The "Queen Bee" syndrome.
Staines, G., Tarvis, C. & Jayoratne, I. E. Psychology Today, 1974, 7 (8), 55-60.
Stein, A. H. and Bailey, M. M. The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 345–366. ,
Stogdili, R. M. Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire- form XII. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1963.
Tyler, L. E. Individual differences: sex differences. International Encyclopiedia of the social sciences. New York: Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1968.
Management Review, 1970, 59, 20-23.
Zuckerman, M. and Wheeler, L. To dispel fantasies about the fantasy-based measure of fear of success. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, Page 26
Horner, M. S. Femininity and successful achievement: a basic incon sistency. In Feminine personality and conflict. Belmont,
Lynch, Edith M. The executive suite--feminine style. New York: Amacom, 1973.
Manpower Report of the President. U. S. Department of Labor. D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974, 387 pp.
The professional manager.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Megargee, E. I. Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53 (5), 377-382.
Merritt, D. H. Discrimination and the women executive. 1969, 12, 15-22.
Millette, M. A. Women fade to background in group study. Bulletin, January 18, 1976, p. 30.
Miner, John B. Student attitudes toward bureaucratic role prescriptions and prospects for managerial talent shortages. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27, 605-613.
Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 809-826.
Pheterson, G. I., Kiesler, S. B., & Goldberg, P.A. Evaluations of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and
Piacente, B. S., Penner, L. A., Hawkins, H. L., & Cohen, S. L. Evaluation of the performance of experimenters as a function of their sex and competence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 321-329.
Rosen, B. and Jerdee, T. H. Sex sterotyping in the executive suite. Harvard Business Review, 1974, 52 (2), 45-48.
Saleh, S. & Lalljee, M. 1969, 32, 465-471.
Schein, V. E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
Schein, V. E. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 340–344.
Schwartz, E. B. Psychological barriers to increased employment of women. Issues in Industrial Society, 1971, 2, 69-73.
Shaffer, D. R. and Wegley, C. Success orientation and sex-role congruence as determinants of the attractiveness of competent women. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 586-600.
Spence, J. T. and Helmreich, R. Who likes competent women? Applied Psychology, 1972, 2, 197-213.
The "Queen Bee" syndrome.
Staines, G., Tarvis, C. & Jayoratne, I. E. Psychology Today, 1974, 7 (8), 55-60.
Stein, A. H. and Bailey, M. M. The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 345–366. ,
Stogdili, R. M. Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire- form XII. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1963.
Tyler, L. E. Individual differences: sex differences. International Encyclopiedia of the social sciences. New York: Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1968.
Management Review, 1970, 59, 20-23.
Zuckerman, M. and Wheeler, L. To dispel fantasies about the fantasy-based measure of fear of success. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, |
Which of the following are reasons why female managers may be more participative as leaders than male managers?
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 aprendervalor Inc.
