Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Gender Differences in Managers' Developmental Job Experiences
Author(s): Patricia J. Ohlott, Marian N. Ruderman and Cynthia D. McCauley

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 46-67
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256769
Accessed: 06-04-2018 10:04 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from 112.133.201.132 on Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:04:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Journal
1994, Vol. 37, No. 1, 46-67.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MANAGERS'

DEVELOPMENTAL JOB EXPERIENCES
PATRICIA J. OHLOTT
MARIAN N. RUDERMAN
CYNTHIA D. McCAULEY
Center for Creative Leadership
Greensboro, NC
It has been suggested that one reason so few women have been pr
moted to senior management positions is that during their careers the
experience fewer developmental job opportunities than men. To tes
this idea, we surveyed male and female managers about development
components in their current jobs. Results suggest that men experien
some greater task-related developmental challenges, but women exp
rience greater developmental challenges stemming from obstacles th
face in their jobs.
Researchers and management practitioners alike have docum

difficult it is for women to break corporate "glass ceilings." A
is an apparent barrier to advancement to the highest level of an
Women's advancement often stops just short of the general
level (Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987). A variety of explana
dearth of women in executive positions has been presented,
personality differences to discrimination by white men in
power. Researchers have found few, if any, differences betw
women in personality, responses to work, and overall effec
boye, 1987; Morrison et al., 1987; Powell, 1990). Gender-base
tion, biological or socialization differences between men and
differential demands of family life individually fail to account
nitude of the differences in the advancement of female and ma
(Horgan, 1989).
Another possible explanation for the differential career succ
and female managers that has received little attention is tha
their careers women are afforded different developmental
than men (Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990). Developmental job assign
been found to be one of the most important factors in preparing
We would like to thank Anne Tsui, Robert E. Kaplan, Ann Morrison, Mar
the Center for Creative Leadership Writers' Group for their insightful comments o
of this article; this journal's anonymous reviewers for guidance on revisions; J
sample access; and Debbie Nelson for painstaking manuscript preparation.
46
1994 Ohlott, Ruderman, and McCauley 47
and men for upper-level management positions (Bray, Campbell, & Grant,
1974; Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; Dipboye, 1987; Hall, 1976; Kelleher,
Finestone, & Lowy, 1986; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). If women
do not experience developmental assignments comparable to those men re-
ceive, women may be less prepared than men for handling future upper-
level management jobs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women may be
denied access to developmental jobs, may be accorded less responsibility in
jobs comparable to those of men, and may be given fewer resources with
which to do their jobs effectively. Blum and Smith (1988) suggested that the
popular press has exaggerated the opportunities available to women in man-
agement and in doing so, may have significantly hindered women's further
progress in management by obscuring the need for specific reforms or by
engendering misguided future policies. Blum and Smith proposed that un-
derstanding gender inequality in management requires a more thorough ex-
ploration of the management jobs in which women are located. The purpose
of this article is to explore this explanation by comparing the developmental
opportunities reported by men and women in managerial jobs.
Despite a growing body of literature on developmental job challenge
(McCall et al., 1988; McCauley, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 1989; Ruderman,
Ohlott, & McCauley, 1990; Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990), gender differences
in experiential learning are still poorly understood. Rosen, Miguel, and
Peirce (1991) found that representatives of 60 percent of the 245 organiza-
tions they surveyed realized that lack of challenging, high-profile assign-
ments was a problem their female managers faced and that this lack could
account for the organizations' failure to attract and retain talented women.
However, their study questioned chief executive officers and human re-
source managers about their general perceptions of problems encountered by
female managers and did not examine specific types of developmental op-
portunities from the perspectives of women themselves.
Van Velsor and Hughes (1990) analyzed interview data from male and
female executives who were asked about key events and lessons that helped
them develop as executives. Their results suggest that the process of devel-
oping from job experiences differs for men and women, in part because
women receive fewer opportunities to experience, and thus learn from, cer-
tain types of assignments. However, because Van Velsor and Hughes's study
involved retrospective interviews, the findings could be a result of differ-
ences in recall rather than differences in actual experiences. In addition, the
use of open-ended questions allowed for the possibility that women could
have had the same experiences as men but failed to mention them in the
interviews. Finally, the women in their sample were from an older genera-
tion of managers and were already highly successful in their careers.
The current study sought to enhance understanding of the developmen-
tal experiences of female and male managers and overcome some limitations
of previous studies by using quantitative methods to look at specific devel-
opmental job experiences. We asked comparable groups of male and female
48 Academy of Management Journal February
managers to respond to a detailed survey assessment of developmental com-

ponents they were experiencing in their current jobs.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Developmental Jobs
Job experiences are receiving increasing recognition as a poten
management development (Feldman, 1988; Heisler & Benham,
et al., 1988; McCauley, 1986; McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Mor
Morrison & Hock, 1986). Key job assignments lead to high-leve
high-potential managers in positions of visibility, and serve as de
tal experiences to prepare managers for future jobs. In addition,
jobs are important for motivating and retaining managers as
teaching them necessary skills (Donnell & Hall, 1980). On-the-job
can stimulate performance and force a manager to learn to co
stresses and problems they create (McCauley, 1986). A growin
research suggests that on-the-job development is most likely to o
managers are faced with challenging situations (McCall et al., 1
ley, 1986; McCauley et al., 1989; Ruderman et al., 1990). Accor
Cauley and colleagues (1994), challenging situations force a m
solve problems and make choices in dynamic situations under con
risk and uncertainty. Exposure to such situations can produce cha
way the manager approaches problems, handles risks, makes d
takes actions. Those authors identified a number of characteri
that stimulate managerial development, terming them "develo
components."
Conceptually, these developmental components fall into th
ries: (1) job transitions, (2) task-related variables, and (3) obsta
ley et al., 1994). Job transitions are person-dependent and ar
changes in a job's content, status, or location (Nicholson, 1984). J
tions place managers in new and unfamiliar situations in whic
learn new strategies and skills to effectively handle a situation (B
Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984). Task-related characteristics stem
lems and dilemmas inherent in a job itself that put a manager in
to try different actions, see the consequences, and learn from th
different characteristics of tasks are developmental: (1) the ne
change, as would exist when starting a business from scratch
around an operation in trouble; (2) a high level of responsibili
linked with high managerial visibility and considerable opportun
a substantial impact; and (3) nonauthority relationships, in which
ager must develop strategies for influencing others and gaining
from people over whom he or she has no formal authority (Co
ford, 1989, 1990; Mowday, 1978; Sayles, 1980). Obstacles are d
managers face within the context of a job, such as working with
boss or an unsupportive group of top managers (McCauley et
Managerial learning is one potential outcome of a challenging job expe-

rience. By managerial learning, we mean the expansion of an individual's
capacity for effective managerial action (McCauley et al., 1994). The type of
learning that may result from challenging job experiences involves practical
managerial skills and knowledge and occurs informally on the job, rather
than in a classroom. Natural managerial learning (Burgoyne & Hodgson,
1983) requires the learner to independently draw conclusions from his or
her own experiences and to apply those lessons. According to Senge (1992),
this type of learning expands the ability to be effective. Developmental job
components stimulate learning because (1) transitions require managers to
fill the gap between their current skills and perspectives and those required
by the situation; (2) task-related challenges require them to respond to prob-
lems and dilemmas stemming from the critical features of tasks; and (3)
obstacles create the motivation and drive to overcome a painful situation
(McCauley et al., 1994). Thus, challenging job assignments provide a unique
contribution to management development.
Gender and Developmental Jobs
Laboratory studies have indicated that men are less likely to assign
challenging tasks to female subordinates than to male subordinates (Mai-
Dalton & Sullivan, 1981). A survey by Rosen, Templeton, and Kichline
(1981) found female managers were more likely to report they were given job
assignments with lower visibility and fewer chances to make important con-
tacts, which kept them from developing crucial social networks. Powell
(1980) and Gold and Pringle (1988) reported that organizations more often
moved women into staff jobs and out of functions central to a business.
Larwood, Gutek, and Gattiker (1984) theorized that managers making staff-
ing decisions are self-interested and attempt to make decisions that will
most advance their own positions or reduce threats to those positions. Such
managers will assess the likelihood that superiors, clients, or subordinates
on whom they themselves depend for support and resources will accept a
woman (or minority member) in a job. If there is pressure to discriminate,
and a hiring manager feels a woman will not be accepted, her work must be
better than that of male applicants or the demands of the job must decrease
before the manager will consider placing the woman in that job. Superior
work and reduced demands compensate the hiring manager for placing his
or her own reputation in jeopardy with co-workers and external stakeholders
(Larwood et al., 1984). Larwood and Gattiker (1985) found that consulting
firms showed bias against female consultants because clients preferred male
consultants and felt women were less credible. An experimental study by
Larwood, Szwajkowski, and Rose (1988) supported this finding.
Field research also suggests that women may have different opportuni-
ties for learning than men. Kanter (1977) argued that discriminatory organ-
izational structures and processes are largely responsible for the fate of peo-
ple in organizations and help explain why women have difficulty reaching
upper management levels. She found that the company she studied denied
women opportunities for advancement and growth and placed them in po-
sitions where they had accountability without power. Kanter's definition of
opportunity included access to challenge and the chance to improve and
increase skills. Interview studies by Morrison and colleagues (1987) and Van
Velsor and Hughes (1990) have also suggested that certain types of job as-
signments and challenging experiences that are seen as stepping-stones to
future upper-level jobs are more available for men than for women, a situ-
ation that may make it more difficult for women to prepare for executive
positions. Women in the study by Van Velsor and Hughes (1990) reported
fewer chances to turn around a business in trouble and reported no oppor-
tunities to start something from scratch, two of the most highly developmen-
tal assignments reported by male managers. In addition, the nature and
scope of women's other assignments were more limited than men's. For
example, women charged with turning around a business in trouble were
less likely than men to be expatriates, and women's jobs tended to involve
less risk and lower visibility. A study of actual management promotion
decisions found hiring managers to be more cautious when placing women
managers, often placing them in trial situations in which they had to prove
themselves before they were put in situations involving real risk (Ruderman
& Ohlott, 1992).
Our review of the research literature suggests that women are probably
denied access to some important developmental opportunities. Several stud-
ies suggest that managers are less willing to take risks with women or put
them in highly visible positions. Thus, women may be less likely to receive
assignments in which they must grapple with unfamiliar responsibilities,
create change, handle a high level of responsibility, or manage nonauthority
relationships. Thus,
Hypothesis 1: Men will experience greater developmental
challenges stemming from transition and task-related job
components than will women.
Although they may lack some job challenges that are traditionally con-
sidered developmental, managerial jobs are still very demanding for women.
Research suggests that women face additional challenges in organizations
because they often lack appropriate role models, have difficulty getting feed-
back, and must continually cope with ambiguous situations in which their
gender complicates the business issues they face (Horgan, 1989; Kanter,
1977; Morrison et al., 1987; Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990). In their study of the
early career experiences of M.B.A. graduates, Rosen and colleagues (1981)
found that although there were no differences between men and women in
career motivation and the need for challenging work, women had fewer
opportunities to share their ideas and receive feedback by interacting with
their supervisors. According to Morrison (1992), a lack of acceptance and
colleagueship contributes to the discouragement and isolation many female
managers appear to feel, and support is one key element of successful di-
versity initiatives. Morrison further suggested that prejudice, resentment,
and hostility may still play a role in female managers' relationships with
bosses, subordinates, and peers. These studies suggest that female managers
are likely to have less support from top management, less personal support,
and more difficulties with their supervisors. Thus,
Hypothesis 2: Women will experience greater develop-
mental challenges stemming from obstacles than will
men.
Individual Differences
A number of other factors can affect the degree to which a manager's job
has developmental components. Research suggests that the following ind
vidual differences may influence the experience of job challenge: (1) ho
different a current job is from an individual's previous assignments, (2
experience, (3) education, (4) a job's type, whether it involves line or staf
responsibilities,1 and (5) organizational level. Since men and women ar
potentially different on these factors, research should take them into accoun
in looking for gender differences. Previous studies have controlled for few,
if any, of these variables. We looked for differences between men and women
on these variables, planning to control for their effects if differences were
found.
The extent to which a situation is new to a manager may influence the
degree to which the manager experiences developmental job components.
Learning time in a new job should decrease as the similarity with prior work
experiences increases (Hall, 1981). Unfamiliarity with the types of demands
present in the job would probably make it more demanding for the manager.
Adler (1987) documented how difficult it is for women to receive foreign
assignments, and Van Velsor and Hughes (1990) and Ruderman and Ohlott
(1992) found that women were not given jobs that were as risky as men's,
suggesting that women were not often put in situations that were unfamiliar
to them.
Human capital theory (Becker, 1964) also suggests that as managers gain
education and experience, they gain greater mastery of management skills
and perspectives. Thus, it has been suggested that experience may be a
surrogate for a manager's general ability. Economists have often used job
tenure as a measure of human capital, with longer tenure reflecting greater
skills or ability. Thus, tenure in terms of age and years in a job may also be
reasonable surrogates for managerial abilities or skills (Tsui & Ohlott, 1988).
If this is the case, all jobs should be less challenging for experienced man-
agers. Van Velsor and Hughes (1990) found women tended to be older when
1 Line managers are directly responsible for the products and services of the organization
and are accountable for profit and loss. Staff managers service and support internal operations
and are not directly responsible for profit and loss (Eichinger & Lombardo, 1990).
they had their first supervisory jobs, suggesting women may have less ex-
perience than men as managers. Although we believe that most general
management skills and abilities are learned on the job through developmen-
tal experiences, it is possible that some may be learned through formal
education. If that is so, years of formal education may influence having the
experience of developmental job challenge.
We were concerned about distributions of line and staff jobs in organ-
izations for two reasons: (1) research has found these characteristics of jobs
to be related to developmental components (Eichinger & Lombardo, 1990;
McCauley et al., 1994) and (2) women and men are sometimes unequally
distributed in line and staff jobs (Gold & Pringle, 1988; Kanter, 1977; Eich-
inger & Lombardo, 1990; Powell, 1980).
Finally, high levels of responsibility have been found to present potent
job challenges. The breadth, complexity, visibility, and number of external
interfaces of managerial jobs increases with their hierarchical level (Bentz,
1987; Thornton & Byham, 1982; Tornow & Pinto, 1976). Harlan and Weiss
(1982) suggested that women are concentrated in lower managerial levels.
METHODS
Data were collected using the Developmental Challenge Pr

(Ruderman, McCauley, Ohlott, & McCall, 1993) from 1988 through
surveys were sent by mail to managers participating in managem
opment programs run by a southeastern management developm
ization. The organizations in the study were chosen because they w
ticipating in training programs and had a particular interest in r
the managers received a cover letter explaining they were being i
participate in a study of management development processes. In m
the surveys were sent to the managers prior to their particip
program and were returned by mail directly to us. In a few situa
management development programs met periodically throughout
and participants returned the survey during one of the sessions.
we asked alumnae of a program designed specifically for manager
to participate in order to enlarge the number of women surv
alumnae accounted for 20 percent of the actual respondents. I
participation in the study was voluntary and confidentiality w
Overall, 281 men and 226 women completed the DCP. The over
rate was 73 percent.
The majority of respondents came from five large corporation
government organization. Our respondents were representative of
of institutions that send their managers to externally run training
they represented diverse businesses, such as public utilities, fi
vices, and manufacturing firms. A variety of functions and jo
represented. Common titles included vice president, of manufactu
keting, research, finance, and so forth; manager (of operation
service, human resources, etc.); general manager; director; project
and supervisor. Ninety-one percent of the men and 89 percent of the women
were white.
Appropriate chi-square tests and t-tests were conducted on key demo-
graphic and descriptive variables to determine the comparability of the male
and female respondents. Both groups had similar distributions of organiza-
tional level (X2 = 2.84, p = .59). Levels represented included professionals,
supervisors, and middle and upper-level managers. Forty-nine percent of the
men and 48 percent of the women were middle managers.
Significant differences between men and women were found on age and
on three measures of experience: job tenure, education, and the similarity of
the current job to the previous job. The average age for men was 43 years; for
women, it was 39 years (t = 5.58, p < .001). The men had been in their
current jobs somewhat longer than the women: 3.5 years versus 2.8 years (t
= 2.44, p < .05). The women tended to be better educated (t = 2.17, p < .05),
with more women (44%) than men (31%) holding graduate degrees. The
women were also more likely to report that their current jobs were very
different from what they had done before (t = 3.73, p < .001). Fifty-one
percent of the women and 41 percent of the men held staff jobs; 34 percent
of the women and 43 percent of the men held line jobs; and the remainder
felt they could not make a clear distinction. This difference was marginally
significant (X2 = 5.23, p = .07). The men and women were at similar levels
in line and staff jobs. The differences found supported our decision to take
individual difference variables into account in our examination of gender
differences in job experiences. Since we found no difference in organiza-
tional level, we did not control for level in this study.
Measures
Measures of developmental job components as captured on the

were derived from the qualitative studies of executive learning and g
reported in Lindsey, Homes, and McCall (1987) and in McCall an
leagues (1988).
Developmental job components. Table 1 gives descriptions of
scales used to measure developmental components and sample item
scale consisted of between 3 and 11 items. Job incumbents rated the extent
to which each item described their jobs on a five-point scale ranging from "to
no extent" (1) to "to a very great extent" (5). Item responses were averaged
to obtain scale scores.
Validity of measures. Descriptions of the developmental job componen
scales and their validation appear in McCauley and colleagues (1994) and
Ohlott, McCauley, and Ruderman (1993). The scales were developed and
refined using factor analytic techniques. Although a detailed description o
the scale development and validity studies is beyond the scope of this arti
cle, a confirmatory factor analysis and examination of the relationship of j
components to other key variables suggested that the psychometric prope
TABLE 1
Developmental Job Components
Number
of
Scale Name Items Types of Components Described Sam
Job transitions
Unfamiliar responsibilities 7 The manager must ha
are new, very different, or mu
previous ones. are unfamilia
Task-related characteristics
Creating change
Developing new directions 11 The manager is responsible for starting You hav
something new, making strategic changes, the
carrying out a reorganization, or responding ope
to rapid changes in the business environment.
Inherited problems 9 The manager has to fix problems created by the You inh
former incumbent or take over problem with se
subordinates.
Reduction decisions 4 Decisions about shutting down operations or You have to lay off
staff reductions have to be made. people.
You're in
operati
Problems with employees 7 Employees lack adequate experience, are Your direct report
incompetent, or are resistant.
High level of responsibility
High stakes 9 Clear deadlines, pressure from senior You are being tested
management, high visibility, and
responsibility for key decisions make success
or failure in this job clearly evident.
TABLE 1 (continued)
Number
of
Scale Name Items Types of Components Described Sam
Managing business 3 The scope of the job is large with You are responsible f
diversity responsibilities for multiple functions, product
groups, products, customers, or markets. You must
or marke
Job overload 6 The sheer size of the job requires a large This job r
investment of time and energy. or more
Handling external 7 External factors with an impact on the business This job re
pressure (e.g., negotiating with unions or government governm
agencies, working in a foreign culture, coping impact o
with serious community problems) must be
dealt with.
Nonauthority relationships
Influencing without 7 Getting the job done requires influencing peers, To achieve
authority higher management, external parties, or other must inf
key people over whom the manager has no units, fu
direct authority.
Obstacles
Lack of top management 7 Senior management is reluctant to provide Resources
support direction, support or resources for current "beg, bo
work or new projects.
Lack of personal support 4 The manager is excluded from key networks It's difficu
and gets little support and encouragement to in thi
from others.
Difficult boss 6 The manager's opinions or management style Your boss
differs from those of the boss, or the boss has importan
major shortcomings.
ties of the scales were quite good. Test-retest reliability for the scales was
also good, ranging from .78 for the scales for handling external pressure and
lack of top management support to .93 for those for job overload and lack of
personal support. Support for the conceptual grouping of the scales emerged
as well.
In the validation studies, most of the scales were related to perceptions
of on-the-job development. Sets of scales were found to be differentially
related to other key variables. Managers experiencing a transition, such as
moving to a new part of a business or beginning their first general manage-
ment position, scored higher on the unfamiliar responsibilities scale than
managers not experiencing a transition. Scales relating to creating change
high levels of responsibility, and nonauthority relationships were most
strongly associated with more objective task-related features of jobs, such as
the mission or goal of an assignment, its organizational level, its type (line or
staff), and its location (domestic or overseas). The obstacle scales, measuring
contextual demands managers have little control over and that they may
experience as painful, were most strongly related to negative psychological
states, such as low motivation and negative stress, and had negative rela-
tionships to perceptions of development.
Control variables. Because we expected individual difference variables
to influence the experience of job challenge, and also because in initial
analyses we found significant differences between women and men on age,
job tenure, familiarity with a job, education, and job type, we used those
variables as controls in these analyses. Age was measured as the number o
years reported by a manager at the time of filling out the questionnaire
Experience, or tenure, was measured by the number of years the manage
had been in the current job. Familiarity with a job was measured by asking
"To what extent is your current job different from the job you had just before
it?" ("overall it's pretty similar," 1, to "overall it's totally different," 5)
Education was measured by asking respondents to indicate the highest level
of education they had completed ("did not finish high school" to "graduate
degree"). Job type was measured by asking managers whether they consid-
ered their jobs to involve primarily line or staff responsibilities (staff, 0; line, 1).
Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas were computed for

each of the 13 developmental job component scales. To test the two hypoth-
eses central to the study, we performed a series of hierarchical regression
analyses using gender as the primary independent variable on each devel-
opmental component variable. Each regression analysis controlled for edu-
cation, job type, and experience. We computed incremental F-tests (Neter &
Wasserman, 1974) for each developmental component to compare the re-
gression model that included just the control variables with the regression
model that added gender as a predictor.
RESULTS
Table 2 presents overall scale coefficient alphas for the develop

job component scales, means and standard deviations for all cont
variables, and intercorrelations of all the variables used in the a
Alpha values for the developmental component scales range from
lack of personal support to .82 for inherited problems, with a media
Means for the developmental component scales range from 1.55 for h
external pressure to 3.46 for managing business diversity. The ze
correlations show that the developmental job component variables are
what correlated, as would be expected since they measure different c
nents within the same job.
Table 3 summarizes results of the regression analyses and incr
F-tests for the developmental job components. Beta coefficients with
itive sign indicate that women scored higher, and betas with a negat
indicate that men scored higher. Most of the regression models are s
cant. Only three models, inherited problems, developing new dir
and job overload, did not approach significance whether or not gende
included. Although the proportion of variance accounted for in m
was not large, gender was a strong predictor for several scales.
Hypothesis 1 proposes that men will score higher on transit
task-related developmental job components. With age, tenure, unfam
education, and job type controlled, gender contributed a unique and s
icant increment to the prediction of three task-related developmenta
ponents: high stakes, managing business diversity, and handling
pressure. As expected, men scored higher than women on these t
velopmental components.
Contrary to prediction, no differences were found on the task-re
scales of developing new directions, inherited problems, reductio
sions, problems with employees, and job overload. Nor was any di
found on the transition-related challenge of unfamiliar responsibilit
ure to find a difference on the latter scale is not surprising, since w
trolled for the degree to which a respondent saw a current job as dif
from previous jobs. More surprising, contrary to prediction, women
higher than men on one task-related scale, influencing without auth
Hypothesis 2 proposes that women will score higher on obstacle-r
scales. With age, tenure, unfamiliarity, education, and job type contr
gender contributed a unique and significant increment to the predict
one obstacle scale, lack of personal support. As predicted, women
experiencing a greater sense of challenge resulting from this obs
differences were found on the scales assessing lack of top manageme
port and having a difficult boss.
Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were only partially supported. Altho
perience may account for some of the differences in developmental
nent scores that emerged, men continued to experience several challe
a greater extent than women, especially those that derive from a hig
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Rel
Variables Mean s.d. cI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Unfamiliar
responsibilities 2.10 0.82 .77
2. Developing new
directions 2.42 0.76 .77 .24
3. Inherited problems 2.08 0.80 .82 .24 .32
4. Reduction decisions 1.56 0.87 .80 .08 .32 .31
5. Problems with
employees 2.03 0.73 .76 .33 .27 .54 .25
6. High stakes 3.05 0.69 .75 .28 .56 .37 .32 .37
7. Managing business
diversity 3.46 1.02 .66 .09 .42 .28 .17 .19 .46
8. Job overload 2.42 0.83 .79 .29 .40 .40 .16 .41 .45 .25
9. Handling external
pressure 1.55 0.63 .66 .12 .38 .27 .28 .26 .40 .30 .31
10. Influencing without
authority 3.20 0.80 .70 .28 .42 .14 .08 .16 .49 .22 .35 .29
11. Lack of top manage-
ment support 1.97 0.68 .71 .22 .35 .37 .26 .39 .39 .16 .38 .22 .38
12. Lack of personal
support 2.32 0.87 .60 .27 .20 .40 .17 .34 .20 .03 .30 .18 .27 .49
13. Difficult boss 2.40 0.82 .75 .07 .06 .06 .06 .26 .09 -.05 .26 .05 .16 .45
14. Unfamiliarity 2.68 0.98 .49 .04 .11 .01 .10 .06 -.05 .06 -.03 .09 .09
15. Job tenure 3.16 3.46 -.16 .03 -.05 .10 -.08 -.00 .08 -.02 .07 -.03 .00 -
16. Age 41.16 7.89 -.19 .08 -.05 .15 -.10 .04 .18 -.09 .24 -.10 .03 -.
17. Education .10 .01 -.06 .10 -.06 -.02 -.09 -.01 .00 .19 .12 .0
18. Gender .14 -.04 .01 -.11 .01 -.15 -.15 -.08 -.16 .09 .04 .20
a N = 507. Correlations greater than or equal to .
TABLE 3
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analy
Developmental .t11.... ns.. n t .I . .. ::.: - .- . -
CDevonstant Tenure Unfamiliarity
Developmental Ov
Componentsa b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b se. b s
Unfamiliar responsibilities
Model 1 1.49** .26 -.02t .01 .38** .03 04 .04 -.01* .00 -.01
Model 2 1.36** .29 -.02t .01 .37** .03 .03 .04 -.01* .00 .00 .05 .0
Developing new directions
Model 1 1.83** .28 .00 .01 .04 .04 .02 .05 .Olt .00 .0
Model 2 1.83** .31 .00 .01 .04 .04 .02 .05 .Olt .00 .05 .05 .
Inherited problems
Model 1 2.14** .29 -.01 .01 .08* .04 -.07 .05 .00 .01 .0
Model 2 .17** .33 -.01 .01 .09* .04 -.07 .05 .00 ,01 .02 .05 -
Reduction decisions
Model 1 0.95** .32 .01 .01 .02 .04 -.05 .05 .01* .01 .08
Model 2 1.18** .36 .01 .01 .02 .04 -.05 .05 .01* .01 .07 .06 -.1
Problems with employees
Model 1 2.38** .27 -.01 .01 .06t .04 -.07 .04 - .01 .00 .0
Model 2 2.42** .30 -.0.01 01 .07t .04 -.07 .04 -.01 .00 .03 .05 -
High stakes
Model 1 2.73** .26 .00 .01 .03 .03 -.01 .04 .00 .00 .08
Model 2 3.08** .28 .00 .01 .05 .03 -.01 .04 .00 .00 .08t .04 -.20*
Managing business diversity
Model 1 2.43** .37 .00 .01 .00 .05 -.08 .06 .02** .01 .24*
Model 2 2.84** .41 .00 .02 .05 -.07 .06 .02** .01 .23** .06 -.23
TABLE 3 (continued)
Constant Tenure Unfamiliarity Education AgeOv

Developmental Job Typ
Componentsa b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e
Job overload
Model 1 2.71** .31 .00 .01 .07t .04 -.03 .05 -.Olt .01 .0
Model 2 2.50** .34 .00 .01 .07t .04 -.03 .05 -.01 .01 .02 .05
Handling external pressure
Model 1 0.57* .23 -.01 .01 -.02 .03 .03 .04 .02** .00 .11*
Model 2 0.79** .26 -.01 .01 -.01 .03 .03 .04 .02** .00 .11** .04 -.12
Influencing without
authority
Model 1 2.98** .28 .01 .01 .07t .04 .18** .05 -.01* .00 -.0
Model 2 2.75** .31 .01 .01 .06t .04 .18** .05 -.01t .01 -.07 .05 .1
Lack of top manage-.
ment support
Model 1 1.52** .25 .00 .01 .03 .03 .10* .04 .01 .00 -.08t
Model 2 1.38** .27 .00 .01 .03 .03 .10* .04 .01 .00 -.08t .04 .
Lack of personal support
Model 1 2.48** .32 -.01 .01 .05 .04 .03 .05 -.01 .01 -.0
Model 2 1.89** .35 -.01 .01 .03 .04 .02 .05 .00 .01 -.05 .05 .33**
Difficult boss
Model 1 2.82** .29 .01 .01 .00 .04 .08t .05 -.01** .01 -.0
Model 2 2.63** .33 .01 .01 .00 .04 .08 .05 -.01* .01 -.06 .05 .1
a Model I contains just the control variables (df,

b For gender, a positive sign indicates women sco
tp < .10
* p < .05
** p < .01
of responsibility and provide high power and visibility, such as high stakes,
managing business diversity, and handling external pressures. Women, on
the other hand, scored strikingly higher on one obstacle scale, lack of per-
sonal support. Women and men appeared to be getting similar experiences
related to transitions and creating change.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine differences in t

mental job experiences of women and men at managerial levels. W
earlier qualitative research by McCall and colleagues (1988) and
and Hughes (1990) by attempting to quantify and measure de
opportunities as they exist in managerial jobs for men and wome
suggest that men and women experience some similar and some
challenges. Since our study focused on current jobs rather th
spective reports of career histories, it provides a more up-to-
gender differences in managerial jobs than has previous research
We found no differences between male and female managers
transition-related scale for unfamiliar responsibilities. This fi
portant because unfamiliar responsibilities is one of the developm
ponent scales most strongly related to learning and development
et al., 1994; Ohlott et al., 1993). In many ways, job transitions ar
obvious form of developmental assignments; new roles and re
seem inherently developmental. Our results suggest both men
are receiving opportunities to handle responsibilities that are ne
ferent from previous ones.
In addition, no gender differences were found on the crea
scales of developing new directions, inherited problems, redu
sions, and problems with employees. Men and women in th
equal opportunities to start new ventures and turn around b
trouble. These findings are very different from Van Velsor a
(1990) findings and show that women are no longer only given r
ities for established operations that are running well. It appears
on the surface, diversity initiatives have been successful, an
women are given similar chances at these potent developme
ences. The mission of creating change is a fairly objective feature
could easily be pointed to if men and women were being treated
in the disbursement of assignments.
These results suggest that women have made major gains sinc
generation of female managers climbed the career ladder. Howev
differences we did find are disturbing because they may reveal
of discrimination that are more difficult to discern than previous
study revealed significant gender differences on the developmen
nent scales relating to a high level of responsibility: high stakes
business diversity, and external pressure. The implication is t
women who do not appear to be different in terms of object
organizations do differ in terms of the criticality, visibility, and breadth of

their responsibilities and in the degree to which they interact externally.
This could mean that women and men may be promoted to similar levels,
but women may not be getting key assignments involving international re-
sponsibilities, negotiation roles, managing multiple functions, and key busi-
ness units. In addition, women reported a greater degree of influencing with-
out authority. It is possible that hiring managers placing women are giving
women only stereotypical challenges: since women are supposed to be better
at nurturing, they are placed in situations requiring them to handle difficult
relationships.
Scores on the high-level-of-responsibility scales in particular have great
implications for understanding the glass ceiling phenomenon. As Hitt and
Barr (1989) and Haberfeld (1992) suggested, managerial selection decisions
are complex, and organizational discrimination in assigning women to po-
sitions is becoming more covert and less easily understood. Male and female
candidates for promotion may have had similar career paths and held jobs at
similar levels in an organization, but it appears that women haven't had the
same responsibilities as men in similar jobs. Being able to handle these types
of challenges becomes more important at higher organizational levels; thus,
women may be eliminated from a candidate pool because they have not had
the opportunity to show what they can do when faced with these kinds of
challenges. Denying women access to high-level responsibilities creates a
vicious cycle in the selection and development process. If women do not
have access to these challenges, they may be perceived as less qualified than
men and may then be unable to qualify for the next job. If a woman's career
is later accelerated for affirmative action reasons, the organization may be
setting her up for failure because she lacks these experiences. Putting a
woman in a highly visible job she is unprepared for could result in visible
confirmation of prejudices. The glass ceiling becomes real because in an
effort to protect women, hiring managers do not give them the same chal-
lenges as men.
Although no gender differences were found on the obstacle scales of
difficult boss and lack of top management support, there is cause for concern
because women face greater challenges deriving from lack of personal sup-
port. To a much greater degree than men, women continue to feel left out of
important networks, have difficulty finding supportive people to talk to, and
feel they must continually fight to be recognized for the work that they do.
Those findings, coupled with the fact that women report a greater need to
influence without authority, support claims in the popular literature that
female managers lack the support, resources, and influence needed to do
their jobs and have important implications for women's experience of job
challenge and learning. Perceived control and social support have been
found to attenuate job challenges (Melamed, Kushnir, & Meir, 1991). In
addition, support and feedback, the opposite of obstacles, are important
facilitators of learning (Horgan, 1989; McCauley et al., 1989; Morrison,
1992). Obstacles are a two-edged sword. Managers who have experienced
obstacles do report developing as a result, despite the pain they endured.

However, what is learned from these experiences may be evident only when
the situation is resolved and the manager reflects back; at the time of the
experience, obstacles represent aspects of jobs that can be frustrating and
demotivating. Managers experiencing obstacles may need help from coaches
or mentors to see the potential developmental benefits of the situation. Or-
ganizational efforts to move women up the management ranks quickly may
unintentionally contribute to the experience of obstacles; women may not
have time to get into networks or develop the relationships necessary for
good advice and feedback.
Obstacles have also been related to low motivation and negative stress
(McCauley et al., 1994; Ohlott et al., 1993) and thus may contribute to organ-
izational problems of turnover among talented women managers. In addi-
tion, if women are placed in positions in which they face substantial obsta-
cles and receive less support than men, women may be set up to fail. In-
creasing the probability of failure offers yet another subtle way of
discriminating against women.
One limitation of our study is that our data are based on self-reports.
Observers, such as bosses, may have different perspectives on the challenges
a manager is facing or the development that is taking place. A second lim-
itation is that since gender and control variables accounted for a relatively
small part of the variance in developmental components, it is possible that
the questionnaire may not have captured some aspects of developmental
jobs, particularly those unique to women. Third, the contribution of gender
in most of the regression equations was small but significant. Even when
differences were found, R2 values were typically low. However, we feel that
the glass ceiling phenomenon has been so pervasive that even small differ-
ences are useful in enhancing understanding of what might be contributing
to the problem. When applied to large numbers of people in organizations,
even small significant effects can have tremendous practical consequences
(Schmidt, Hunter, & Pearlman, 1982). This study has led to the discovery of
some subtle, rather than overt, discriminatory staffing practices that may be
at work. The movement of women to higher levels is constrained by biases
that deny access to key responsibilities and by the limited number of posi-
tions available toward the tops of hierarchies. Since a woman may be denied
challenging opportunities more than once during her career, systematic bias
is likely to be cumulative. Thus, future research should take a longitudinal
approach to studying job challenge.
Further research is also needed to investigate the outcomes of develop-
mental challenges. Do they lead to learning, and if so, are there gender
differences in the process? Do women learn the same or different managerial
skills as men from the same developmental challenges? Or do men and
women learn the same things from different challenges? A related question
is whether women and men differ in their outlooks on development; if so,
those disparate views may account for some of the differences in the expe-
rience of job challenge. Future research in this area could look at learning
styles and openness to change.
It is likely that too much job challenge will become stressful. It would be
interesting to see whether how people perceive potential developmental
opportunities in their jobs-as challenge or threat-influences what they
learn and if men and women differ in how they view their jobs. Research
should also continue to examine the additional challenges women face in
managerial jobs. It would be interesting to test whether perceived control
and social support moderate the experience of developmental challenges,
particularly obstacles, and also whether the experience of obstacles is re-
lated to dissatisfaction, stress, and turnover among women managers.
Additional research is needed that explores in depth factors that com-
plicate the experience of managerial jobs for women and assesses their im-
pact on development and learning. Studying on-the-job development can
help increase academic understanding of how the dynamics of the manage-
rial role may differ for men and for women. Examining the differences from
this job-person interaction perspective avoids blaming either men, for prac-
ticing discrimination, or women, for "personality flaws," for the problems
faced by women attempting to advance to senior management. As Powell
(1990) concluded, if women are to ever achieve equal representation in
corporate executive ranks, it is important for organizations to be gender-
blind in their decisions regarding managerial positions and to minimize
differences in job experiences so that artificial gender differences in careers
do not arise. Equal developmental opportunities may never amount to equiv-
alent experience, because different people develop in different ways, but
organizations need to ensure the availability of developmental assignments
to all potential managers.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. 1987. Pacific basin managers: A gaijin, not a woman. Human Resou
ment, 26: 169-191.
Becker, G. S. 1964. Human capital. New York: National Bureau for Economic Research.
Bentz, V. J. 1987. Explorations of scope and scale: The critical determinant of high-l
executive effectiveness. Report no. 31, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, N
Blum, L., & Smith, V. 1988. Women's mobility in the corporation: A critique of the politic
optimism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13: 528-545.
Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. 1974. Formative years in business: A long-t
AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: Wiley.
Brett, J. M. 1984. Job transitions and personal and role development. In K. M. Rowland & G.
Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 2: 155-18
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Burgoyne, J. G., & Hodgson, V. E. 1983. Natural managerial learning and managerial action
phenomenological study in the field setting. Journal of Management Studies, 20: 387
399.
Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. 1989. Influence without authority: The use of alliances, reci-
procity, and exchange to accomplish work. Organizational Dynamics, 17(3): 4-17.
Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. 1990. Influence without authority. New York: Wiley.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. 1984. Learning and developing from managerial work experi-
ences. Journal of Management Studies, 21: 169-183.
Dipboye, R. L. 1987. Problems and progress of women in management. In K. S. Koziara, N. H.
Moskow, & L. D. Turner (Eds.), Working women: Past, present, future: 118-153. Wash-
ington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Donnell, S. M., & Hall, J. 1980. Men and women as managers: A case of no significant difference.
Organizational Dynamics, 8(4): 60-77.
Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. 1990. Twenty-two ways to develop leadership in staff
managers. Report no. 144, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Feldman, D. C. 1988. Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Gold, U., & Pringle, J. 1988. Gender specific factors in management promotion. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 3(4): 17-22.
Haberfeld, Y. 1992. Employment discrimination: An organizational model. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 35: 161-180.
Hall, D. T. 1976. Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Hall, D. T. 1981. Socialization processes in later career years: Can there be growth at the ter-
minal level? In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family, and the career: 219-233. New York: Prae-
ger.
Harlan, A., & Weiss, C. 1982. In P. Wallace (Ed.), Women in the workplace: 59-100. Boston:
Auburn House.
Heisler, W. J., & Benham, P. 0. 1992. The challenge of management development in Nor
America in the 1990s. Journal of Management Development, 11(2): 16-31.
Hitt, M. A., & Barr, S. H. 1989. Managerial selection decision models: Examination of configural
cue processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 53-61.
Horgan, D. D. 1989. A cognitive learning perspective on women becoming expert managers
Journal of Business and Psychology, 3: 299-313.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kelleher, D., Finestone, P., & Lowy, A. 1986. Managerial learning: First notes from an unstudie
frontier. Group and Organization Studies, 11: 169-202.
Larwood, L., & Gattiker, U. E. 1985. Rational bias and interorganizational power in the employ-
ment of management consultants. Group and Organization Studies, 10: 3-17.
Larwood, L., Gutek, B. A., & Gattiker, U. E. 1984. Perspectives on institutional discriminati
and resistance to change. Group and Organization Studies, 9: 333-352.
Larwood, L., Szwajkowski, E., & Rose, S. 1988. Sex and race discrimination resulting fro
manager-client relationships: Applying the rational bias theory of managerial discrimin
tion. Sex Roles, 18: 9-29.
Lindsey, E. H., Homes, V., & McCall, M. W., Jr. 1987. Key events in executives' lives. Report no.
32, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Mai-Dalton, R. R., & Sullivan, J. J. 1981. The effects of manager's sex on the assignment to a
challenging or dull task and reasons for the choice. Academy of Management Journal, 24:
603-612.
McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. 1988. The lesso
successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington
McCauley, C. D. 1986. Developmental experiences in managerial work
Technical report no. 26, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro,
McCauley, C. D., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. 1989. O

model and preliminary investigation. Journal of Man
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. R., Ohlott, P. J., & Morro
mental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Ap
Melamed, S., Kushnir, T., & Meir, E. I. 1991. Attenuating
and interactive effects of perceived control and soc
Behavior, 39: 40-53.
Morrison, A. M. 1992. The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. 1987. Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women
reach the top of America's largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Morrison, R. F., & Hock, R. R. 1986. Career building: Learning from cumulative work experi-
ences. In D. T. Hall & Associates (Eds.), Career development in organizations: 236-273.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mowday, R. T. 1978. The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 23: 137-156.
Neter, J., & Wasserman, W. 1974. Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of
variance, and experimental design. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Nicholson, N. 1984. A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29:
172-191.
Ohlott, P. J., McCauley, C. D., & Ruderman, M. N. 1993. Developmental

Learning from job experiences-Manual and trainer's guide. Greensbo
Creative Leadership.
Powell, G. N. 1980. Career development and the woman manager: A socia
Personnel, 57(3): 22-32.
Powell, G. N. 1990. One more time: Do female and male managers diffe
agement Executive, 4(3): 68-75.
Rosen, B., Miguel, M., & Peirce, E. 1991. Stemming the exodus of wome
Resource Management, 28: 475-491.
Rosen, B., Templeton, N. C., & Kichline, K. 1981. First few years on the job: Women in man-
agement. Business Horizons, 24(6): 26-29.
Ruderman, M. N., McCauley, C. D., Ohlott, P. J., & McCall, M. W., Jr. 1993. Developmental
challenge profile: Learning from job experiences. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. 1992. Managerial promotions as a diversity practice. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & McCauley, C. D. 1990. Assessing opportunities for leadership
development. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership: 547-562. West
Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Sayles, L. R. 1980. Managerial behavior. Huntington, NY: Krieger.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Pearlman, K. 1982. Assessing the economic impact of personnel
programs on productivity. Personnel Psychology, 35: 333-347.
Senge, P. M. 1992. Diversity and the fifth discipline. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Academy of Management, Las Vegas.
Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. 1982. Assessment centers and managerial performance.
New York: Academic Press.
Tornow, W., & Pinto, P. 1976. The development of a managerial job taxonomy: A system for
describing, classifying, and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 61: 410-418.
Tsui, A. S., & Ohlott, P. J. 1988. Multiple assessment of managerial effectiveness: Interrater
agreement and consensus in effectiveness models. Personnel Psychology, 41: 779-803.
Van Velsor, E., & Hughes, M. W. 1990. Gender differences in the development of managers:
How women managers learn from experience. Technical report no. 145, Center for Cre-
ative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Patricia J. Ohlott is a research associate at the Center for Creative Leadership. She is
pursuing a Ph.D. degree in organizational behavior at the Fuqua School of Business,
Duke University. Her research interests include management development through job
assignments, workplace diversity, and executive impact on organization design.
Marian N. Ruderman is a research scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership. She
received her Ph.D. degree in organizational psychology from the University of Michi-
gan. Her research interests are centered on management development, the promotion
process, and diversity in the workplace.
Cynthia D. McCauley is a research scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership. She
received her Ph.D. degree in applied psychology from the University of Georgia. Her
current research interests include management development through job assignments,
the impact of leadership development programs, and leadership in nonprofit organiza-
tions.

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Gender Differences in Managers' Developmental Job Experiences

Author(s): Patricia J. Ohlott, Marian N. Ruderman and Cynthia D. McCauley

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MANAGERS'

Researchers and management practitioners alike have docum

managers to respond to a detailed survey assessment of developmental com-

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Managerial learning is one potential outcome of a challenging job expe-

Data were collected using the Developmental Challenge Pr

Measures of developmental job components as captured on the

Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas were computed for

Table 2 presents overall scale coefficient alphas for the develop

a N = 507. Correlations greater than or equal to .

Constant Tenure Unfamiliarity Education AgeOv

a Model I contains just the control variables (df,

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in t

organizations do differ in terms of the criticality, visibility, and breadth of

obstacles do report developing as a result, despite the pain they endured.

McCauley, C. D., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. 1989. O

Ohlott, P. J., McCauley, C. D., & Ruderman, M. N. 1993. Developmental

Potrebbero piacerti anche