Corporations will be equally hiring men and women based on their skills and knowledge in the future.

17092404.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >Corporations will be equally hiring men and women based on their skills and knowledge in the future.

Power tactic usage by gender at work and home: past, present,

and future Joseph Schwarzwald, Meni Koslowsky and Jessica Bernstein

Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat gan, Israel

Abstract

Purpose – Research has indicated that gender stereotypes, especially as they relate to women, are changing due to their growing numbers in the labor force. This research on power usage for gaining compliance in conflict situations examines whether a similar tendency exists for social power tactics, another aspect of the gender stereotype.

Design/methodology/approach – In two studies, one focusing on manager-subordinates interactions ðn ¼ 141Þ and the other on husband-wife relationships ðn ¼ 149Þ; participants were presented with scenarios describing conflict situations relevant for each setting occurring in three time periods - past, present, and future – and then estimated the frequency of power category (harsh/intermediate/soft) usage by men and women in each of these periods.

Findings – Findings indicated that gender stereotypical attributions eroded over time with a greater ascription of feminine tactics to males in the present and future. It was also found that harsh tactics usage was attributed to a greater extent in the work rather than the home setting.

Research limitations/implications: – In general, stereotype research assesses perceptions rather than reality. The perceptions measured here regarding past and future, though intrinsically informative, may reflect selective perception or social desirability.

Originality/value – This work indicated that the increasing involvement of women in the work force seems to have affected perceptions of the manner in which individuals exercise power in conflict situations. In particular, gender differences in power usage are viewed as diminishing over time; a tendency more discernible in the work world than at home.

Keywords Gender stereotypes, Social power, Cross-cultural research

Paper type Research paper

Gender stereotypes reflect widely accepted attributes, opinions or roles ascribed to males or females (Deaux and Kite, 1993; Williams and Best, 1982). Men and women are perceived differently on various types of social behavior such as aggression, conformity, decoding nonverbal messages, expressing emotion, and helping others (DePaulo, 1992; Brody and Hall, 2000; Timmers et al., 1998). For example, men are more likely than women to be described as authority figures or experts and are highly rated on traits associated with competence, leadership, objectivity, and independence (Deaux and LaFrance, 1998; Hurtz and Durkin, 1997). Women are rated high on traits associated with warmth and expressiveness, gentleness, and empathy (Cejka and Eagly, 1999; Sidanius et al., 1994). Eagly and Steffen (1984) used the term “communal” to depict traits and behaviors typically attributed to women and “agentic” to behaviors typical of men.

Social role theory argues that gender stereotypes arise because men and women occupy roles in society associated with different skills and expectations and, therefore, are assumed to possess the characteristics that typify these roles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Steffen, 1984; Cejka and Eagly, 1999). Were men and women to occupy the same

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

Power tactic usage

307

International Journal of Conflict Management

Vol. 24 No. 3, 2013 pp. 307-324

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1044-4068

DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2011-0020

roles, they would be perceived similarly. This argument was supported by Diekman and Eagly (2000) on the nature of personality traits over time. The present study raises the question whether the dynamic nature of gender stereotype observed in the literature also applies to social power usage. More specifically, using an Israeli sample, peoples’ perceptions of social power usage by men and women were examined for different time periods. For this purpose, two studies in which perceptions (rather than actual behavior) of power usage over time at work and in the family were tested.

The assumption that the gender stereotypes are related to social roles was illustrated in a study where single fathers acting as caregivers were depicted as having child-care abilities similar to those of single and married mothers; at the same time they were found to differ from married fathers (Risman, 1987). This tendency to associate roles with traits was also discussed by Taylor et al. (2000) concerning domestic social behavior in Kenya, where boys typically perform physical work and girls’ household tasks. However, when girls are not in the vicinity, their tasks are often performed by boys. This latter group was found to be more socially skilled, less aggressive, and less dominant than their typical male counterparts.

It follows from social role theory that a change in roles would be accompanied by a change in gender stereotype. Indeed, such role changes were observed in the US between 1950 and 1998 when women’s participation in the labor force increased from 34 percent to 60 percent (US Department of Labor, 2003). However, the parallel track, men’s entrance into traditional female roles both in the labor market and in the family, was considerably less prominent (Biernat and Wortman, 1991; Diekman and Eagly, 2000; Reskin and Roos, 1990; Shelton, 1992; Steil, 1997). A meta-analysis where masculinity and femininity were defined by scores on the Bem (1974) Sex-Role Inventory, and the Spence and Helmreich (1978) Personal Attributes Questionnaire, confirmed this trend: women’s masculinity increased linearly over the years whereas changes in men’s femininity were minimal (Twenge, 1997). The observed differential pattern has provided a natural laboratory for testing the association between social roles and gender stereotype convergence. In particular, convergence is expected to occur from the greater attribution of masculine traits to women as opposed to feminine traits to men.

Several studies have examined the relationship between gender stereotypes and change in social roles over time. In their comparison of past and present data sets, Lueptow et al. (1995) reported that gender stereotypes had remained relatively static over the last 50 years. However, Diekman and Eagly’s (2000) assessment of stereotypes in different time periods supported social role theory expectations. Participants who were asked to ascribe personality, cognitive, and physical traits to men and women in the past, present, and future assigned traits corresponding to the actual role change occurring in society. Similarity between men and women increased from the past to the present, and was even more pronounced when compared to the future. The convergence resulted mainly from the ascription of masculine personality traits to women. As regards physical and cognitive characteristics, the observed change was relatively small and was attributed to their being less associated with social roles. In a follow-up investigation where Diekman et al. (2004) employed both qualitative and quantitative techniques their findings supported the hypothesis that people perceive women as gaining in power over the next 50 years. More specifically, women were perceived as gaining in occupational and relational power from the past into the future whereas men were perceived as decreasing in relational power.

IJCMA 24,3

308

Gender stereotypes and social power Gender stereotypes may also be related to social power tactic usage. Several typologies of power tactics have been offered over the years with the formulation by French and Raven (1959) considered as one of the most popular and sophisticated approaches (Mintzberg, 1983; Podsakoff and Schriesheim, 1985). Originally, French and Raven identified five distinct power tactics, to which Raven (1965) added a sixth one:

(1) coercion – threat of punishment in case target does not comply;

(2) reward – promise of special benefits in return for compliance;

(3) legitimacy – drawing on one’s right to influence due to scope of authority;

(4) expertise – relying on one’s knowledge or experience;

(5) reference – compliance based on target’s identification with influencing agent or willingness to establish or maintain a relationship with him/her; and

(6) information – providing convincing arguments or supporting evidence.

In his new power interaction model, Raven (1992, 1993) expanded the number of tactics to 11. Coercion and reward were divided into personal and impersonal forms:

. impersonal coercion – threat of tangible punishment in case of refusal;

. personal coercion – threat of personal or intangible punishment such as disapproval, alienation, or dislike;

. impersonal reward – promise of tangible compensation in return for compliance; and

. personal reward – promise of intangible compensation such as esteem or appreciation.

Legitimacy was further partitioned into four distinct tactics where adherence to social norms served as the common denominator:

(1) reciprocity – demand for compliance in return for the agent having done something positive for the target;

(2) equity – demand for compliance as a compensation for hard work or sufferance by the agent;

(3) dependence – demand for compliance based on social responsibility to assist another who is in need; and

(4) position – demand for compliance as an aspect of one’s scope of authority.

Raven et al. (1998) reported that the eleven power tactics are not independent but rather represent two underlying strategies or categories of power tactics, “harsh” and “soft”. The harsh strategy emphasizes the advantage of the influencing agent over the target as the demand for compliance is based on the ability to offer reward, threaten punishment, or exercise authority. The soft strategy reflects a more egalitarian and respectful approach by allowing the target person a wider latitude in deciding whether or not to comply (for further explanation, see, Koslowsky and Schwarzwald, 2001; Koslowsky and Schwarzwald, in press). Other researchers have also alluded to the same or similar categorization, such as “position” and “personal” (e.g. Yukl and Falbe, 1991), or “hard”, “soft” and “rational” power strategies (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1985).

Power tactic usage

309

Particularly relevant to our study is the harsh/soft distinction being depicted as “masculine or male” versus “feminine or female” (Gruber and White, 1986; Frieze and McHugh, 1992; Keshet et al., 2006). This categorization of power tactics is consistent with stereotypical expectations. The harsh/soft dichotomy which reflects differential tactics for gaining compliance mirrors our previous discussion on gender stereotypes where men are perceived as assertive, controlling, and competitive and women as warm, emotional, and empathetic. As men are frequently assigned to roles that endow them with greater power than women (Eagly, 1987) the distinction in gender stereotypes may also explain differential social power usage. Thus, men are expected to exercise harsh, heavy-handed, direct power tactics and women soft, indirect power tactics in their efforts to obtain compliance from others (Gruber and White, 1986; Eagly, 1983, Johnson, 1976; Offerman and Schrier, 1985).

Indeed, empirical findings have generally supported the harsh/soft distinction between genders (Bui et al., 1994; Gruber and White, 1986; DuBrin, 1991, Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Falbo and Peplau, 1980; Schwarzwald and Koslowsky, 1999). For example, women workers were found to use soft power tactics more frequently by resorting to negotiation, altruism and rationality while their men counterparts tended to prefer tactics such as coercion, reward and punishment (Offerman and Kearney, 1988; Offerman and Schrier, 1985, Harper and Hirokawa, 1988). Moreover, studies have shown that harsh tactics are perceived as more legitimate for men than women, a conclusion consistent with gender stereotypes (Eagly, 1983, 1987, 1995; Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Gruber and White, 1986). In sum, gender differences have been demonstrated repeatedly and conform to our expectations concerning differential preference in power usage by men and women.

Pursuant to Raven’s (1992) expanded formulation of power tactics, the Interpersonal Power Interaction Model was posited to explain the process by which influencing agents choose power tactics. Personal, social/cultural, and situational factors were introduced as potential moderators in the choice process. These factors, presented in general terms, need to be operationalized. Gender is often viewed as a cultural factor that affects power choice with most cultures assigning to men roles that are associated with greater power and a wider variety of power tactics, especially harsh ones, whereas women are assigned to roles in which soft tactics usage is more prevalent (Carli, 1999; Gruber and White, 1986; Eagly, 1987). As such, we contend:

H1. Harsh power tactics would be ascribed more to men than to women and soft power tactics more to women than to men.

Testing and confirming this hypothesis would provide an indication of robustness of the assumption that gender power tactics differences are affected by social cultural factors.

We further asked whether the remarkable social-cultural phenomenon of women entering the labor market in such large numbers, and to a lesser extent into managerial positions, would be accompanied by a perceived change in the ascription of power tactics to men and women. Stated differently, are Diekman and Eagly’s (2000) inferences concerning the change in gender stereotype traits over time also applicable to power tactics? Our investigation of social power on Israeli participants is quite appropriate for studying this question as the trend in the Israeli labor market strongly resembles the changes observed in the US and described previously. For example, the percentage of employed women in 1960 was only 27 percent and increased to 39

IJCMA 24,3

310

percent in 1987 (Effroni, 1998). By the year 2000, approximately 50 percent of Israeli women were reported as working (CBS, 2011).

Applying social role theory, which maintains that an association between gender and occupational roles exist, leads us to expect a convergence in perceived power usage by gender. Whereas this change over time has been shown previously to exist for personality traits, the question arises whether a shift in perception can also be expected for power usage. By examining the harsh/soft dichotomy, we can test whether the new relationships found in the workplace impact on power usage as well. In particular, the fact that women now occupy masculine roles to a greater extent should be reflected in the ascription of power tactics. The following hypotheses test these expectations:

H2. The gender gap in the ascription of power tactics between men and women would decrease with time. Specifically, the gap would be greatest in the past, decrease in the present and even more so in the future.

Finally, research has shown that the change in social roles was asymmetric. In the work world, women were seen as moving into more traditional male roles and occupations whereas the entrance of men into traditional female roles was rather limited. Within family settings, both husbands and wives’ roles appeared to have undergone little change (e.g. Diekman and Eagly, 2000; Steil, 1997). Thus, two studies were conducted to compare perceptions of power usage over time at work and at home. The first involved manager-subordinate and the second husband-wife relationships. Based on the literature survey above, we expected greater changes in the work place as compared to the home. Specifically we contend that:

H3. The change in power tactic ascription would be greater for manager-subordinate than for husband-wife relationships.

Study 1. Manager-subordinate relationships Method Participants. A total of 141 (56 men, 85 women) Israeli university students majoring in social sciences participated in the study. Their age ranged from 19 to 42 ðM ¼ 23:8; SD ¼ 3:16Þ: These participants were randomly assigned to one of three time conditions (past, present, and future).

Measures . Power strategy questionnaire (PSQ). The PSQ questionnaire constructed for the first

study was adapted from the original Interpersonal Power Inventory (Raven et al., 1998). In the first section, the participant is presented with the following introduction: “Assume it is the year 1950 and think about a workplace supervised by a male manager. As in every work setting, conflicts between managers and workers arise occasionally. We would like to examine how you think a typical manager behaved more than 50 years ago in a conflict situation where the subordinate, despite his/her disagreement, eventually complied with the manager’s request.”

Following this introduction, the respondent is asked to estimate the frequency with which the typical male manager, in the year 1950, employed each of the 11 tactics to gain compliance.

Each strategy was defined by providing typical behaviors. For example, the impersonal reward item stated: “the manager promised a reward if the subordinate

Power tactic usage

311

complies (or promised a more convenient shift, a raise in salary, a letter of recommendation for purposes of promotion, etc.).” The personal coercion item: “the manager threatens that he would give the worker a ‘cold shoulder (ignore/resent)’ if the subordinate does not comply.” The response to each strategy ranged from “never” (1) to “always” (7).

Six versions of the questionnaires were administered in which time frame (past-1950; present-2000; future-2050) by manager gender varied.

. Participant demographics. Information concerning gender, age, education, religiosity, and political preference (left, center, right) was collected.

Procedure. The questionnaires were administered to the students in their classrooms. Each student received a booklet which included a letter describing the study’s purpose as an examination of social perceptions. Anonymity and confidentiality was promised to all participants. Each participant received two identical versions of the PSQ for a specific time frame with but varying by manager gender. Order of questionnaires was counterbalanced. Order effect was not found to be significant in any of the analyses and was dropped from further consideration.

Results The literature indicates that power tactics are not independent but rather represent a smaller number of dimensions (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1985; Raven et al., 1998; Yukl and Falbe, 1991). As the PSQ was constructed specifically for this study, we conducted a principal components analysis to determine if the tactics here can be reduced to the same components obtained in previous research. The analysis performed across time and gender yielded a three factor solution consisting of harsh, intermediate, and soft tactics (see Table I). The harsh factor is considered masculine in nature and includes personal and impersonal coercion, legitimacy of position and equity, and expertise. Although expertise is often reported as a soft tactic, some researchers (e.g. Carli, 1999)

Loadings Factor and power tactics Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Harsh Impersonal coercion 0.73 0.00 0.00 Personal coercion 0.73 20.10 20.21 Legitimacy of position 0.67 20.26 0.00 Legitimacy of equity 0.63 0.18 0.00 Expertise 0.61 20.18 0.55

Intermediate Personal reward 0.00 0.70 0.18 Impersonal reward 20.16 0.62 0.15 Legitimacy of dependence 20.25 0.61 0.23 Legitimacy of reciprocity 0.42 0.61 20.12

Soft Reference 0.00 0.31 0.76 Information 20.22 0.20 0.72 Eigenvalues 3.10 1.97 1.14 (%) 28.22 17.93 10.33

Table I. Factor analysis for the 11 power tactics (manager- subordinate relationship)

IJCMA 24,3

312

argue that women are perceived as relatively low on expertise power and its placement within the harsh category is appropriate here. The intermediate factor which has both harsh and soft characteristics includes four tactics: personal and impersonal reward, legitimacy of reciprocity and dependence. The soft factor consists of two tactics, reference and information.

We then computed for male and female managers in the scenarios three scores reflecting the mean values of the tactics in each power tactic category. These scores were analyzed in a mixed analysis of variance where respondent gender and time period are between subject variables and the power category and management gender, within subject variables. Before testing our hypotheses, the power means were examined by demographics using correlations (age and education) and analysis of variance (religiosity and political preference). Except for gender, which was included in the analysis below, no other demographic showed any significant mean differences on power categories.

The hypotheses were tested using a mixed ANOVA with power tactic category harsh/intermediate/soft) as the dependent variable and manager gender serving as a within-subject variable and time period and participant gender as between subject variables. The analysis yielded significant results for two main effects, power category, Fð2; 266Þ ¼ 15:17; p , 0.001, h 2 ¼ 0.10 and manager gender, F(1, 133) ¼ 6.42, p , 0.02, h

2 ¼ 0.05. In addition, the two-way interactions of power category by manager

gender, Fð2; 266Þ ¼ 21:34; p , 0.001, h 2 ¼ 0:14; and power category by time period, Fð4; 266Þ ¼ 3:87; p , 0.01, h 2 ¼ 0:06 were significant. Finally, the triple order interaction, power category by manager gender by time period, Fð4; 266Þ ¼ 3:35; p , 0.02, h 2 ¼ 0:05; was significant. Due to the importance of the power categories in the study, our analysis focuses on this variable as a main effect, whereas the other significant results will be interpreted as part of the triple order effect.

The significant gender x power interaction reflects the greater attribution of harsh tactics to men ðM ¼ 4:52; SD ¼ 1:00Þ than to women ðM ¼ 4:10; SD ¼ 0:95Þ; in contrast, for intermediate and soft tactics, the pattern is reversed with women obtaining higher values ðM ¼ 4:32; SD ¼ 0:94Þ and ðM ¼ 4:86; SD ¼ 1:19Þ; respectively, as compared to men ðM ¼ 3:91; SD ¼ 0:97Þ and ðM ¼ 4:45; SD ¼ 1:30Þ; respectively. These findings supported our first hypothesis concerning gender stereotypes of power tactics.

The observed power main effect, across time period and manager gender is due to the tendency of participants to ascribe greater usage of soft tactics ðM ¼ 4:66; SD ¼ 1:28Þ as compared to harsh ðM ¼ 4:31; SD ¼ 1:02Þ or intermediate ones ðM ¼ 4:11; SD ¼ 0:97Þ: post hoc comparisons indicated that soft differed from both harsh, tð140Þ ¼ 3:05; p , 0.01 and intermediate tactics, tð140Þ ¼ 6:10; p , 0.001. The latter two did not differ significantly from each other. This tendency to ascribe greater usage of soft tactics is a frequently reported finding in the field (Koslowsky and Schwarzwald, 2001; Raven et al., 1998).

The mean scores in the triple interaction of power tactics by manager gender by time period are provided in Table II. A perusal of the table indicates, for male managers across time, a general decline in harsh power usage, a concomitant increase in soft power usage, and no clear trend for the intermediate category. post hoc tests (Scheffe) indicated significant results ( p , 0.05) for the past-present and past-future comparisons. The comparisons for female managers produced no significant results. The resulting pattern is consistent with H2 as it shows a decrease in the gap between genders.

Power tactic usage

313

A more detailed comparison of the individual tactics included within the harsh category – personal coercion, impersonal coercion, and legitimacy of position – declined significantly over time. For the soft category, both reference and information, increased significantly over time. The intermediate category showed no significant time effect.

Study 2. Romantic relationships Method Participants. Participants included 149 Israeli university students (52 men, 97 females) whose age ranged from 19 to 54 ðM ¼ 23:69; SD ¼ 3:59Þ: They were randomly assigned to one of three time conditions (past, present, and future).

. Power strategy questionnaire (PSQ). Similar to the first study, a PSQ questionnaire was constructed. The content here reflected heterosexual romantic relationships. The scenario introduction stated: “Assume it is the year 1950 and think about a typical heterosexual couple in a romantic relationship. As with every couple, conflicts often arise. We would like to examine how in your opinion a typical man/woman behaved 50 years ago in order to obtain compliance, from one’s partner, despite his/her disagreement. After this introduction, the respondent is asked to estimate the frequency with which the typical male/female, of 50 years ago, resorted to each of the 11 tactics to gain compliance.”

Each tactic was defined by appropriate illustrative behaviors. For example, the impersonal reward item stated: “the partner is promised a reward if he/she complies (a present, a gift that he/she has wanted).” The personal coercion item: “the partner threatens that he would give the other one a ‘cold shoulder (ignore/resent)’ if he/she doesn’t comply.” The response to each strategy ranged from “never” (1) to “always” (7).

Six versions of the questionnaire were administered, three time periods (past-1950; present-2000; future-2050) by partner gender (influencing agent in the scenario).

. Participant demographics. Information concerning gender, age, education, religiosity, and political preference (left, center, right) was collected.

. Procedure. The procedure here is similar to the one described in study 1. Each participant received two identical versions of the PSQ regarding time frame but varying by partner gender. The order of administration was counterbalanced.

Time period Past Present Future

Power category Manager gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F(2,138)

Harsh Male 4.94 0.97 4.30 0.90 4.32 1.15 6.14 * *

Female 4.20 0.99 4.04 0.90 4.06 0.99 ns

Intermediate Male 3.78 1.04 3.97 0.91 3.99 0.96 ns Female 4.39 0.87 4.18 0.91 4.38 1.04 ns

Soft Male 3.98 1.51 4.65 1.13 4.72 1.26 4.62 *

Female 4.78 1.23 4.97 1.19 4.85 1.15 ns

Note: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Table II. Power category means and (SDs) by manager gender and time period

IJCMA 24,3

314

Results A principal components analysis similar to the one conducted in study 1, again yielded a three-factor solution (Table III). It is readily apparent that the intermediate tactics explained the largest percentage of the variance in the analysis and soft, the least. This reversal from the previous factor analysis can be attributed to legitimacy of equity being included with the intermediate tactics and expertise among the soft ones. It would appear that for romantic relationships these two tactics are perceived differently than for manager-subordinate relationships. This apparent inconsistency will be explained in the discussion.

Similar to the procedure applied in the first study, power scores were initially examined by each of the demographics using correlations and analysis of variance. Here too, except for gender, no other demographic was significant.

For testing the study hypotheses, a mixed ANOVA was conducted with power tactic category (the dependent variable) and partner gender (husband or wife) as within subject variables and time period and participant gender as between subject variables. Significant main effects were obtained for power category, Fð2; 282Þ ¼ 68:88; p , 0.001, h 2 ¼ 0:33 and partner gender, Fð1; 141Þ ¼ 5:74; p , 0.05, h 2 ¼ 0:04: In addition, significant findings were obtained for the two-way interactions of time period by partner gender, Fð2; 141Þ ¼ 3:25; p , 0.05, h 2 ¼ 0:04 and power category by time period, Fð2; 141Þ ¼ 4:42; p , 0.02, h 2 ¼ 0:06: Finally, the triple order interaction, power category by partner gender by time period, Fð4; 141Þ ¼ 10:67; p , 0.001, h 2 ¼ 0:13 was also significant. Due to the importance of the power structure in the study, our interpretation will focus on this construct as a main effect in itself.

Unlike the first study, the analysis here for gender x power did not reach statistical significance. Yet, the overall pattern was similar; for harsh tactics the mean for men ðM ¼ 3:84; SD ¼ 1:01Þ and women ðM ¼ 3:83; SD ¼ 1:00Þ was essentially equal, for intermediate and soft tactics, the pattern observed in study 1 was replicated here. Women

Loadings Factor and power tactics Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Harsh Impersonal coercion 0.00 0.83 0.00 Personal coercion 0.00 0.79 0.00 Legitimacy of position 0.32 0.45 0.35

Intermediate Personal reward 0.65 0.00 0.26 Impersonal reward 0.64 0.00 20.11 Legitimacy of dependence 0.63 20.17 0.17 Legitimacy of reciprocity 0.62 0.37 0.14 Legitimacy of equity 0.57 0.47 0.00

Soft Information 0.00 20.17 0.82 Expertise 0.00 0.39 0.65 Reference 0.31 0.00 0.63 Eigenvalues 3.00 1.73 1.26 (%) 27.29 15.69 11.45

Table III. Factor analysis for the 11

power tactics (romantic relationship)

Power tactic usage

315

obtained higher values ðM ¼ 4:48; SD ¼ 1:10Þ and ðM ¼ 4:96; SD ¼ 1:15Þ; respectively, as compared to men ðM ¼ 4:04; SD ¼ 0:96Þ and ðM ¼ 4:65; SD ¼ 1:25Þ; respectively. The gender differences for intermediate and soft tactics concurred with expectations.

The significant findings related to power category can be attributed to the tendency of participants to ascribe greater usage of soft tactics ðM ¼ 4:64; SD ¼ 0:87Þ as compared to intermediate ðM ¼ 4:21; SD ¼ 0:87Þ or harsh ones ðM ¼ 3:63; SD ¼ 0:92Þ: post hoc analyses (Scheffe) indicated that all three comparisons differed significantly ( p ,0.01) from each other:

(1) the comparison between harsh and intermediate,;

(2) the comparison between harsh and soft; and

(3) the comparison between intermediate and soft.

This pattern supports the frequently observed preference for soft tactics over harsh ones. It also concurs with our assumption that the second power tactic category is indeed an intermediate one between harsh and soft.

Table IV provides the means pertaining to the triple interaction of partner gender by time period by power category. The significant F’s in the table can be attributed to three trends. When compared to the past, males, in the future, were seen as using harsh tactics less and intermediate tactics more. For females, the changes were linear, as the use of soft tactics increased steadily over time. Similar to study 1, H2 concerning convergence in power tactics over time was obtained. In particular, the convergence resulted from participants ascribing less harsh tactics to males in the present and the future as compared to the past.

Comparing the two studies The literature has indicated that the massive entry of women into the workplace has had an effect on perception of gender stereotypes. This has been particularly pronounced in the context of work whereas, at home, the division of labor between men and women has undergone only small changes (Diekman and Eagly, 2000). As such our last hypothesis expected that the gender convergence in power usage would be more noticeable for manager-subordinate than for husband-wife relationships.

To assess this hypothesis we analyzed, separately for males and females, harsh and soft tactic usage by type of relationship and time period. The relevant means were

Time period Past Present Future

Power category Partner gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F(2,148)

Harsh Male 4.16 0.98 3.48 1.09 3.89 1.06 5.27 * *

Female 3.57 0.93 3.94 1.17 4.00 0.89 ns

Intermediate Male 3.99 0.89 3.81 1.12 4.32 0.88 3.60 *

Female 4.59 1.08 4.38 1.26 4.47 0.95 ns

Soft Male 4.31 1.37 4.89 1.28 4.75 1.09 ns Female 4,78 1.22 4.81 1.30 5.30 0.95 3.25 *

Note: *p , 0.05

Table IV. Means and (SDs) of power categories by partner gender and time period

IJCMA 24,3

316

already presented in Table II for manager-subordinate relationship and Table IV for husband-wife relationship. A finding of a significant interaction between type of relationship (manager-subordinate vs husband-wife) and time period would support our hypothesis. Next, we present the finding for harsh and soft tactics by gender. As intermediate tactics did not differ significantly by time period or relationship type, these findings are not presented.

The analysis for male harsh tactic usage yielded significant results for time period, Fð2; 284Þ ¼ 10:32; p , 0.001, h 2 ¼ 0:07; and for relationship type, Fð1; 284Þ ¼ 31:56; p , 0.001, h2 ¼ 0:10: post hoc comparisons for time period showed that means for the past were significantly higher than those for the present and future. The significance for relationship type resulted from higher ascription of harsh tactics to work relationship ðM ¼ 4:92; SD ¼ 1:09Þ as compared to husband-wife relationship ðM ¼ 3:84; SD ¼ 1:07Þ: The analysis for male soft tactic usage yielded significant results only for time period, Fð2; 280Þ ¼ 7:22; p , 0.01, h 2 ¼ 0:05: post hoc comparisons showed that this finding resulted from smaller ascription of soft tactics to the past as compared to either the present or future.

In the analysis for female harsh tactic usage, only relationship type was significant, Fð1; 287Þ ¼ 5:18; p , 0.03, h 2 ¼ 0:02: Similar to the above, participants ascribed greater usage of harsh tactics ðM ¼ 4:10; SD ¼ 0:96Þ to the work setting than to the home ðM ¼ 3:84; SD ¼ 1:01Þ: In the analysis for female soft tactics, none of the results reached statistical significance.

Summing up, an examination of the relevant means showed that in the work situation, convergence was seen for both harsh and soft tactics. This result can be explained by the fact that males were perceived as using less harsh, and more soft tactics, over time. However, in the home setting, the trend, over time, was not consistent. In addition, the data clearly indicated that for both genders harsh tactics usage was attributed to a greater extent in the work rather than the home setting.

Discussion Our paper addressed the issue of the dynamic of social power changes as perceived by Israeli participants. In both studies, power usage differences by gender were perceived as decreasing over time. This trend was observed mainly among males to whom participants ascribed less usage of harsh tactics in the present and future as compared to the past. The findings also indicated that harsh tactics were perceived as being used more frequently at work than at home.

A major focus of the study included the expectations that more frequent usage of harsh tactics and less frequent usage of soft ones would be attributed to male rather than female targets; and this differential attribution of power tactics by gender would decrease and converge over time. The first expectation relates to the typical gender stereotype reported in the literature where distinct cognitive, personal, and behavioral characteristics are associated with each gender (Cejka and Eagly, 1999; Gruber and White, 1986; Johnson, 1976). The second expectation was based on social role theory which posits that gender stereotypes reflect social reality. In our case, the recent increase of women in the labor market and their occupying positions held in the past by men entailed a revolution in the work world (Diekman and Eagly, 2000; Eagly, 1987). In general, these two expectations were confirmed.

Power tactic usage

317

As regards time period, the differential perceptions were also found to be contingent on context and power dimension. In the work context, greater usage of soft tactics and lesser usage of harsh ones were attributed to male supervisors in the present and future, as compared to the past. The attribution of power usage to female managers did not change over time. In the couple context, a decrease of harsh tactics from the past to the present/future was noted for male partners. For female partners, an increase of soft power tactics was observed over time.

Theoretical perspective It appears that the changes in perceived power usage occurred mainly for men who were seen to use less harsh tactics and more soft ones in the present and future as compared to the past. As the pattern of results discussed so far involves within-gender comparisons, it also behooves us to examine between-gender perceptions over time. For this purpose, we combined the present and future (for which no differential hypotheses were suggested) and examined gender differences (male-female frequencies) by power category. In both situations, the future was viewed optimistically – greater usage of soft power by women at home and lesser usage of harsh tactics by men at work. Diekman and Eagly (2000)’s claim that this perception may reflect individuals’ general tendency to see a “rosy” future is also applicable here.

For both genders, a shift in stereotypes regarding power usage, as reported here, and for personal characteristics, as reported by Diekman and Eagly (2000) has occurred. Gender stereotypes did indeed converge over time in each study yet the source differed. In the latter, it resulted from a greater attribution of traditionally male characteristics to females whereas in the former, the convergence stemmed from greater attribution of female power tactics to males.

How can one explain this inconsistency in the source of change? The new male/female work force composition can readily be applied for explaining the Diekman and Eagly findings where the change is seen in female characteristics which have become more masculine. Men continue to hold occupations similar to those they held in the past whereas women appear more frequently in traditionally male jobs.

The pattern for power usage among men needs to be understood from a different perspective. If one looks back about 30 years, managerial positions were almost exclusively occupied by males. No wonder that the cluster of traits embedded in the concept of “agency” was attributed to men and subsumed traits such as independence, ambition, and assertiveness. This cluster of traits was even perceived as essential for managerial roles expressed so ingenuously by the “think-manager, think-male” phenomenon (Cejka and Eagly, 1999; Schein et al., 1996). It is our contention that with the increase of women in managerial positions and the positive evaluation of “feminine” leaders, investigators have suggested that this style is consistent with typically “community” characteristics including cooperation, empowerment of workers, flexibility, distribution of knowledge, delegation of authority, and interpersonal skills (Eagly and Carli, 2003; Gerber, 1999; Griffin, 2001; Rosener, 1990, 1997). As the leadership style introduced to the organization by women was quite successful, women did not have to modify their power tactic preferences and their approach to managing workers was often adopted by men (Eagly et al., 2003; Helgesen, 1990). In other words, a major implication of our findings is that the entry of women

IJCMA 24,3

318

into the labor market has affected leadership style, over time, such that the authoritarian approach of the past is changing into a more egalitarian one.

Another finding consistent with this trend was reported by Sczesny (2003) who asked participants to rate the importance of task (typically masculine) and people (feminine) oriented abilities for leadership efficacy. Similar importance was attributed to both types of abilities. Using manager self-reports, Pines et al. (2001) observed that the feminine leadership style was preferred by many male managers. This trend was also expressed in analyses of management perceptions where traits that encourage teamwork and cooperation, allow workers to be empowered and to participate in decision making were all attributed to “good leaders” (Hammer and Champy, 1994; Senge, 1994). From the above studies, one can infer that the conventional truism of “think manager, think man”, is less relevant today. This new perception of effective leadership is well illustrated by a speech given a few years ago by Carly Fiona to MIT graduates. As the then CEO of Hewlett-Packard, she declared “leadership in this new landscape is not about controlling decision making. . . It’s about creating the right environment. It’s about enablement, empowerment. Leaders can no longer view strategy and execution as abstract concepts but must realize that both elements are about people” (Rodriguez, 2002, pp. 7-8).

Our results may also reflect the fact that male managers find it easier to adopt feminine power tactics as compared to women adopting masculine ones. Although males and females are expected to behave according to gender stereotypes (DuBrin, 1991; Johnson, 1976; Offerman and Schrier, 1985) and deviance often arouses negative reactions (Falbo et al., 1982), it appears that incongruent behavior hurts women more than men (Carli, 1995; Eagly and Wood, 1991; Gruber and White, 1986). Consistent with this perspective, Eagly and Karau (2002) have argued that women face greater difficulty in being recognized as effective in masculine roles. In other words, men who possess greater freedom for non-stereotypical behavior apparently find it easier to adopt feminine tactics whereas women seem to be deterred from adopting masculine ones suspecting that it may harm their image.

Our study hypothesized that gender stereotypes would convergence more rapidly at work than at home. The rationale for this expectation was based on the assumption that in the world of work, the proportion of women occupying traditional male roles increased while at home the sharing of duties and chores hardly altered (e.g. Diekman and Eagly, 2000; Steil, 1997). This pattern was not confirmed; indeed, we found that harsh tactics usage at home was perceived as less frequent. It may be that the changes in women’s roles in society, in general, also affected other aspects of the gender relationship at home.

It is worth noting that the inconsistency between our findings and that of Diekman and Eagly’s may simply reflect cultural differences. The convergence expectation was based on the fact that, in both countries, there has been a massive entry of women into the labor market. However, the differences of source of convergence may be explained by cultural factors. In particular, by the middle of the last century (“past” in our study), Israeli women already lived in a more egalitarian society where they often held positions similar to men in work settings involving physical labor. Stated differently, the advancement of women in Israeli society differed from that of the US. During the early stages of Israel’s establishment, gender equality in social roles was common in many settings such as the armed forces, Kibbutzim (collective communities), and other agricultural settlements.

The claim that cultural differences played a role in explaining the inconsistency was also applied by other investigators. Wilde and Diekman (2005) revealed that masculine

Power tactic usage

319

personality characteristics were being ascribed more frequently to American women than to their German counterparts while feminine physical characteristics were ascribed more to German women. This difference was explained by the fact that, after the Second World War, German women took upon themselves two roles: the traditional male (e.g. hard physical labor) along with the traditional female (e.g. raising a family). In another study, Diekman et al. (2005) analyzed gender stereotypes over time and found that Latin American women were perceived to change more dramatically than US women. This differential pattern was attributed to the rapid change in women’s roles in their society. A research design to clarify which of the alternative explanations is more plausible awaits a multi-national study where both power tactics and personal characteristics are compared across cultures.

Methodological issues The analysis of the eleven power tactics derived from the Power Interaction Model were found to represent three underlying dimensions - -harsh, intermediate, and soft. These results are consistent with previous work indicating that power tactics are not independent but hang together thus supporting the examination of power usage at the categorical rather than the individual tactic level (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1985; Yukl and Falbe, 1991). These categories reflect the perception of power usage frequency ranging from the least (harsh) to the most (soft). This harsh-soft continuum, along with the tendency to ascribe greater usage of soft tactics as compared to intermediate or harsh ones, is both consistent with our expectation and provides evidence for the scale’s appropriateness and robustness (e.g. Raven et al., 1998; Schwarzwald and Koslowsky, 2006). As the intermediate category includes harsh and soft elements and no clear trend as to its usage was detected, our discussion here focused on interpreting the findings relating to the harsh and soft categories.

Although quite similar, the factor structure in the two studies revealed some telling differences. Two tactics, expertise and legitimacy of equity, were found to be context related. Expertise was considered as harsh in the manager-worker setting but as soft in the husband-wife setting. Legitimacy of equity was seen as harsh in the manager-worker setting and intermediate in the husband-wife setting. A possible explanation for this shift is the interpretation given by participants to each setting. When applied to the manager, expertise is perceived as a direct method of persuasion wherein the supervisor tells the subordinate that he/she knows more and, thereby, emphasizes position or hierarchical differences commonly associated with the harsh dimension. Among couples, expertise was apparently not perceived as a positional statement, and, therefore, was considered soft. Legitimacy of equity, the second tactic, involves a request for compliance as a compensation for harm done. Whereas among couples, it only involves a personal demand for payment, for the manager-subordinate case, legitimacy of equity also refers to return for injury done to the organization.

Finally, a possible follow-up study for examining the validity of the stereotypic perceptions, at least for the past period (1950), would be to compare our data with perceptions obtained from people who lived through that period. This solution, although informative, still has drawbacks as even their responses may reflect selective perception or impression management so as to distort the truth. This distortion may work in both directions either showing a greater gender gap or a smaller gap than actually exists.

IJCMA 24,3

320

Conclusion Our study of gender stereotypes concerning power usage perceived by Israeli participants showed a clear convergence in perception of power usage by men and women in the work setting. At home, the pattern over time was less uniform. The observed convergence stemmed mainly as a result of men’s perceived usage of harsh tactics decreasing over the last 50 years. We argued that this trend in power usage is related to the supposition that for modern organizations experiencing rapid change women’s managerial style is more effective. Nevertheless, the lack of increase in harsh power usage by women may reflect obstacles that they still experience in being accepted at the executive level when exercising typical masculine power tactics.

References

Bem, S.L. (1974), “The measurement of psychological androgyny”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 155-162.

Biernat, M. and Wortman, C. (1991), “Sharing of home responsibilities between professionally employed women and their husbands”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 844-860.

Brody, L. and Hall, H.A. (2000), “Gender, emotion, and expression”, Handbook of Emotions, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 338-349.

Bui, K.T., Raven, B.H. and Schwarzwald, J. (1994), “Influence strategies in dating relationships: the effects of relationship satisfaction, gender, and perspective”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 429-442.

Carli, L. (1995), “Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 1030-1041.

Carli, L. (1999), “Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, pp. 81-99.

CBS (2011), Women and Men in Israel (1990-2009), Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem.

Cejka, M.A. and Eagly, A.H. (1999), “Gender stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, pp. 413-423.

Deaux, K. and Kite, M. (1993), “Gender stereotypes”, in Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J. and Kidd, R.F. (Eds), New Directions in Attribution Research, Vol. 1, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 335-352.

Deaux, K. and LaFrance, M. (1998), “Gender”, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, pp. 788-827.

DePaulo, B.M. (1992), “Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111, pp. 203-243.

Diekman, A.B. and Eagly, A.H. (2000), “Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 26, pp. 1171-1188.

Diekman, A.B., Goodfriend, W. and Goodwin, S. (2004), “Dynamic stereotypes of power: perceived change and stability in gender hierarchies”, Sex Roles, Vol. 50, pp. 201-215.

Diekman, A.B., Eagly, A.H., Mladinic, A. and Ferreira, M.C. (2005), “Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the US”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 209-226.

DuBrin, A.J. (1991), “Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 68, pp. 635-646.

Power tactic usage

321

Eagly, A.H. (1983), “Gender and social influence: a social psychological analysis”, American Psychologist, Vol. 38, pp. 971-981.

Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Eagly, A.H. (1995), “The science and politics of comparing women and men”, American Psychologist, Vol. 50, pp. 145-158.

Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L. (2003), “The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence”, Leadership-Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 807-834.

Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 233-256.

Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”, Psychological Review, Vol. 109, pp. 573-598.

Eagly, A.H. and Steffen, V.J. (1984), “Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 735-754.

Eagly, A.H. and Wood, W. (1991), “Explaining sex differences in social behavior: a meta-analytic perspective”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17, pp. 306-315.

Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M. (2003), “Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129, pp. 569-591.

Effroni, L. (1998), The Working Women and Her Family, Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, Jerusalem.

Falbo, T. and Peplau, L.A. (1980), “Power strategies in intimate relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 618-628.

Falbo, T.L., Hazen, M.D. and Linimon, D. (1982), “The cost of selecting power bases in messages associated with the other sex”, Sex Roles, Vol. 8, pp. 147-158.

Frieze, I.H. and McHugh, M.C. (1992), “Power and influence strategies in violent and nonviolent marriages”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 449-465.

French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (Eds), Group Dynamics, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Gerber, C. (1999), “Best places to work in IT 1999: women on the rise”, June 28, available at: www. computerworld.com/news/1999/ story/0,11280,36205,00.html (accessed October 11, 2004).

Griffin, C.E. (2001), “Be a man! No, wait. . . Be a woman!” Entrepreneur Magazine, May 2001. available at: www.entrepreneur.com/Magazines/Copy_of_MA_SegArticle/ 0,4453,288484,00.html (accessed October 11, 2004).

Gruber, K.J. and White, J.W. (1986), “Gender differences in the perceptions of self’s and other’s use of power strategies”, Sex Roles, Vol. 15, pp. 109-118.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1994), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Harper, N.L. and Hirokawa, R.Y. (1988), “A comparison of persuasive strategies used by female and male managers: an examination of downward influence”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 157-168.

Helgesen, S. (1990), The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Hurtz, W. and Durkin, K. (1997), “Gender role stereotyping in Australian radio commercials”, Sex Roles, Vol. 36, pp. 103-114.

Johnson, P. (1976), “Women and power: toward a theory of effectiveness”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 32, pp. 99-110.

IJCMA 24,3

322

Keshet, R., Kark, R., Pomerantz-Zorin, L., Koslowsky, M. and Schwarzwald, J. (2006), “Gender status and the use of power strategies”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 105-117.

Kipnis, D. and Schmidt, S. (1985), “The language of persuasion”, Psychology Today, Vol. 19, pp. 40-46.

Koslowsky, M. and Schwarzwald, J. (2001), “The power interaction model: theory, methodology, and empirical applications”, in Lee-Chai, A.Y. and Bargh, J.A. (Eds), The Use and Abuse of Power, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 195-214.

Lueptow, L.B., Garovich, L. and Lueptow, M.B. (1995), “The persistence of gender stereotypes in the face of changing sex roles: evidence contrary to the sociocultural model”, Ethology and Sociobiology, Vol. 16, pp. 509-530.

Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and around Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Offerman, L.R. and Kearney, C.T. (1988), “Supervisor sex and subordinate influence strategies”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 11, pp. 286-300.

Offerman, L.R. and Schrier, P.E. (1985), “Social influence strategies: the impact of sex, role, and attitudes toward power”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 11, pp. 286-300.

Pines, A., Dahan-Kalev, H. and Ronen, S. (2001), “The influence of feminist self-definition on democratic attitudes of managers”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 29, pp. 607-616.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Schriesheim, C.A. (1985), “Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of power: critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97, pp. 387-411.

Raven, B.H. (1965), “Social influence and power”, in Steiner, I.D. and Fishbein, M. (Eds), Current Studies in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY, pp. 371-381.

Raven, B.H. (1992), “A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 7, pp. 217-244.

Raven, B.H. (1993), “The bases of power: origins and recent developments”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 49, pp. 227-251.

Raven, B.H., Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (1998), “Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 307-332.

Reskin, B.F. and Roos, P.A. (1990), Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Risman, B. (1987), “Intimate relationships from a micro-structural perspective: men who mother”, Gender and Society, Vol. 1, pp. 6-32.

Rodriguez, A.M. (2002), Women’s Style of Leadership Gets Noticed, available at: www.sclmcoach. com/leadership.html (accessed October 20, 2004).

Rosener, J.B. (1990), “Ways women lead”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 119-125.

Rosener, J.B. (1997), “Leadership and the paradox of gender”, in Walsh, M.R. (Ed.), Women, Men and Gender: Ongoing Debates, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 294-297.

Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T. and Liu, J. (1996), “Think manager–think male: a global phenomenon?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 33-41.

Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (1999), “Gender, self-esteem, and focus of interest in the use of power strategies by adolescents in conflict situations”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, pp. 15-32.

Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (2006), “The interpersonal power interaction model: theoretical, empirical, and methodological reflections”, in Chadee, D. and Young, J. (Eds),

Power tactic usage

323

Current Themes in Social Psychology, SOCS, University of the West Indies Press, St Augustine, Trinidad, pp. 123-144.

Sczesny, S. (2003), “A closer look beneath the surface: various facets of the think-manager-think-male stereotype”, Sex Roles, Vol. 49, pp. 353-363.

Senge, P.M. (1994), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday Currency, New York, NY.

Shelton, B.A. (1992), Women, Men, and Time: Gender Differences in Paid Work, Housework and Leisure, Greenwood, New York, NY.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. and Bobo, L. (1994), “Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: a case of invariance?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 998-1011.

Spence, J.T. and Helmreich, R.L. (1978), Masculinity and Femininity, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Steil, J.M. (1997), Marital Equality: Its Relationship to the Well-Being of Husbands and Wives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Taylor, S.E., Peplau, L.A. and Sears, D.O. (2000), Social Psychology, 10th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Timmers, M., Fischer, A.H. and Manstead, A.S.R. (1998), “Emotion expression as a function of gender and social context”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24, pp. 974-985.

Twenge, J.M. (1997), “Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: a meta-analysis”, Sex Roles, Vol. 36, pp. 305-325.

US Department of Labor (2003), “Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population 16 years and over by sex, 1970 to date”, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC, available at: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat2.txt (accessed April 2, 2003).

Wilde, A. and Diekman, A.B. (2005), “Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: a comparison between Germany and the US”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 188-196.

Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1982), Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty-Nation Study, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1991), “The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 416-423.