The Issue of Gender Reaction to Workplace Diversity - Article Example

A summarizing critique of Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women by Jennifer A. Chatman and Charles A. O’Reilly (2004),Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 193-208. The article explores the issue of gender reaction to workplace diversity and the sex’s response to groupings of those with similar, or different, sexes. Previous research has explored how men and women respond to gender dominance in the workplace (Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly, 1992). Prior studies have focused on the similarity-attraction hypothesis only. Chatman and O’Reilly find this hypothesis to be too straightforward to fully capture the variable of gender in work groups. Specifically, various studies have found that men may react negatively to a male dominated work environment, while women were more likely to be democratic toward men when the work group was female dominated (Konrad, Winter, and Gutek, 1992). The authors note that previous studies have relied on information that was gathered in environments where there were very few instances of female presence (p. 194). The issue of female underrepresentation in the work groups has also been a concern for feminists and researchers for a number of years (Syed and Murray, 2008) (Francoeur et al. 2008). The authors extend this hypothesis to include environments that are male dominated, female dominated, exclusively male or female, and a balanced number of men and women. By adding these other factors the study has not only separated itself from previous research, but enabled the examination of the issue of group sex diversity from various angles while avoiding a focus on similarity-attraction predictions. Chatman and O’Reilly put forth a study using deductive reasoning and a set of hypotheses that examine the relationship of men and women to the gender proportion of their work groups. The authors begin the study by examining general observations about gender in the work groups and go on to narrow their observations and previous research into a set of hypotheses. The first, hypothesis 1, is concerned with male and female preference for inclusion in higher status work groups and secondly, hypothesis 2a proposes that men and women in groups that are dominated by their own gender will be more committed to the organization. In addition those in groups that are dominated by their own gender will express a higher positive affect as proposed in hypothesis 2b. Lastly hypothesis 2c suggests that those in groups where their own gender is dominate will believe those groups are more cooperating than groups dominated by the opposite sex (p. 196). The authors conducted a quantitative study examining 189 professionals of both genders who were surveyed about their beliefs and attitudes concerning the issue of gender diversity in the workplace. Subsequently 11 participants were dropped from the study because they did not complete their responses, or their overall data was incomplete leaving a total of 178 that were fully surveyed (p. 196). The individuals selected comprised a clothing manufacturer and retailer and were professionals as opposed to production workers. The independent variables included questions on gender and work group sex composition (which were ascertained from company records). The dependant variables were the employees likelihood to transfer from their current work group and their normative commitment to the organization (by which the authors used a preexisting eight-item scale ranging from 1= “strongly disagree, 5 = “strongly agree” (p. 197). Also among the dependant variables were positive affects, and work group cooperation. In addition the control variables include a description of how the participants felt about aspects of their employment, their age, race, and group size. There were also a number of dummy variables including some that were subsequently dropped from the study. The results of the findings were very interesting in that some hypotheses are more adequately supported than others. The authors found “that women reported a significantly higher likelihood of transferring out of homogeneous same-sex groups than did men (p. 198). This evidence supports the first hypothesis that women overall would display a propensity or want to leave a work group because of the same sex domination. Next the research indicated evidence that women expressed a higher level of normative commitment and men that worked in homogeneous groups were not as normatively committed to the organization when compared to men working in male dominated groups or balanced work groups which only partially supports hypothesis 2a (p. 199). The authors also discovered that women in male dominated group settings expressed a lower level of positive affect in comparison to those in homogeneous groups and in contradiction to hypothesis 2b, men involved in homogenous atmospheres expressed the lowest levels of positive affect (p. 200). Lastly when examining hypothesis 2c “women viewed their female-dominated work groups as more cooperative than men viewed their male-dominated work groups as being” (p. 200). As a whole the result of the study leads to some very interesting conclusions about gender in work groups and how both sexes respond to domination or balance by either gender. As a whole the authors were able to discover some credible conclusions using quantitative research and numerical calculations of that research as evidenced by the graphs and statistical data. The authors were successful at taking the similarity-attraction theory and making it malleable enough to create extensions of the theory itself (Ibarra, 1992). The researchers recognize limitations explaining that the business they studied possessed an atypical makeup of both minorities and women. This makeup does not affect the overall outcome of the study and is a statistic that has increased overtime, especially in the business (Campbell and Minguez-Vera, 2008). The authors note that they do not actually measure job performance in the study or consider how gender diversity could possibly play a role when considering performance. This is definitely an area that needs to be explored in the future because in the workplace the most important factor is actual job performance. This certainly could have been an area, if addressed, the researchers might have used to bolster the significance of the overall study and the result gathered. So what are the benefits of possessing the information derived from this study? This is a possible question the readers may be left to ask themselves. The authors suggest that the information presented will help managers be to provide women support in male-dominated work groups and ease levels of stereotyping for both genders. While this observation makes since the authors fail to acknowledge exactly what actions managers could take to do this, and how their research alludes to those action. They have adequately placed the research in a feasible context, while not providing a usability element for the research itself. Bibliography Campbell, K., Minguez-Vera, A. (2008). ‘Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial support, Journal of Business Ethics’. Vol. 83, 435-451. Chatman, J.A. and O’Reilly C.A. (2004), ‘Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women’. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, 193-208. D’Intino, R.S., Goldsby, M.G., Houghton, J.D., and Neck, C.P. (2007). ‘Self-Leadership: A process for entrepreneurial success’. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Vol. 13, No. 4, 105-120. Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Sinclair-Desgagne, B. (2008) ‘Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management.’ Vol. 81, 83-95. Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, 442-447. Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. (1999). The effects of proportional representation and gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, 339-348. Konrad, A., & Cannings, K. (1997) The effects of gender role congruence and statistical discrimination on managerial advancement. Human Relations, Vol. 50, 1305-1328. Konrad, A., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. (1992). Diversity in work group sex composition. Research in the sociology of organizations.Vol. 10, 115-140. Syed, J., Murray, P.A. (2008). ‘A cultural feminist approach towards managing diversity in top management teams’. Vol. 27, No. 5, 413-432. Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C (1992), ‘Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment’. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 3, 549-579. Read More