ArticlePDF Available

A Woman’s Place and a Man’s Duty: How Gender Role Incongruence in One’s Family Life Can Result in Home-Related Spillover Discrimination at Work

Springer Nature
Journal of Business and Psychology
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The purpose of this study was to investigate how gender role incongruence in terms of women being primary wage earners and males being secondary wage earners in their families could affect them at work. Using an experimental design and a sample of 306 college students, I explored how females who are the primary wage earners in their families and males who are the secondary wage earners are perceived and evaluated in a work setting. I proposed, and found, that female primary wage earners are seen as the least overqualified and are given lower reward recommendations than equally qualified male peers (i.e., peers with exactly the same credentials and job performance). Male secondary wage earners are seen as being the most overqualified and are given higher reward recommendations than equally qualified female peers. Results demonstrate how the lack of fit model, which has been shown to penalize women who succeed in traditionally masculine domains (Dipboye, Acad Manag Rev 10:16–127, 1985; Heilman, Res Organ Behav 5:269–298, 1983, J Soc Issues 57:657–674, 2001), can be applied to situations where gender-incongruent behavior exists in the form of women being primary wage earners in their families. I refer to this phenomenon as “home-related spillover discrimination,” named after the spillover effects that derive from societal expectations that are transferred into employment situations (Nieva and Gutek, Acad Manag Rev 5:267–276, 1980). The practical implication of this finding is that this may present a new form of sex discrimination against women that has not yet been considered. This is the first study to show how violating stereotypical roles in terms of family wage earner status can influence outcomes in work settings. KeywordsGender roles–Sex discrimination–Incongruence–Wage earner status–Stereotypes
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gender role incongruence
1
Running Head: GENDER ROLE INCONGRUENCE
A woman’s place and a man’s duty: How gender role incongruence in one’s family life can result
in home-related spillover discrimination at work
Cite: Triana, M. (2011) A woman’s place and a man’s duty: How gender role incongruence in
one’s family life can result in home-related spillover discrimination at work. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 26, 71-86. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9182-5.
María del Carmen Triana
The University of Wisconsin - Madison
This is the final version of the paper which was accepted.
The final publication is available at Springer via:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10869-010-9182-5
Gender role incongruence
2
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study was to investigate how gender role incongruence in terms of
women being primary wage earners and males being secondary wage earners in their families
could affect them at work.
Design/methodology/approach - Using an experimental design and a sample of 306 college
students, I explored how females who are the primary wage earners in their families and males
who are the secondary wage earners are perceived and evaluated in a work setting.
Findings - I proposed, and found, that female primary wage earners are seen as the least
overqualified and are given lower reward recommendations than equally qualified male peers
(i.e., peers with exactly the same credentials and job performance). Male secondary wage
earners are seen as being the most overqualified and are given higher reward recommendations
than equally qualified female peers.
Implications Results demonstrate how the lack of fit model, which has been shown to penalize
women who succeed in traditionally masculine domains (Dipboye, 1985; Heilman, 1983, 2001),
can be applied to situations where gender-incongruent behavior exists in the form of women
being primary wage earners in their families. I refer to this phenomenon as “home-related
spillover discrimination,” named after the spillover effects that derive from societal expectations
that are transferred into employment situations (Nieva & Gutek, 1980). The practical implication
of this finding is that this may present a new form of sex discrimination against women that has
not yet been considered.
Originality/value - This is the first study to show how violating stereotypical roles in terms of
family wage earner status can influence outcomes in work settings.
Keywords: gender roles, sex discrimination, incongruence, wage earner status, stereotypes
Gender role incongruence
3
A woman’s place and a man’s duty: How gender role incongruence in one’s family life can result
in home-related spillover discrimination at work
Research on sex discrimination in the workplace shows that women can be penalized for
acting outside of their prescribed gender stereotypes (Dipboye, 1985; Heilman, 1983, 1995;
Heilman & Eagly, 2008; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins,
2004). One way in which men and women may violate their prescribed gender roles, an area that
has not received much research attention, is by women being the primary breadwinners and men
being the secondary breadwinners in the family. Population survey figures suggest “the presence
of a growing number of married couples in which traditional gender roles vis-à-vis labor market
activity may be reversed” – that is, the wife is the primary wage earner and the husband is the
secondary wage earner (Winkler, 1998, p. 42; Winkler, McBride, & Andrews, 2005). Among
dual-earner couples in the United States, 24% of wives earn more than their husbands (Winkler,
1998; Winkler et al., 2005). However, despite the evidence that wage earner roles are shifting,
the majority of couples still exhibit the “traditional” model where the male is the primary wage
earner in the family (Winkler, 1998; Winkler et al., 2005). In fact, the pattern where the wife
earns more than the husband has been called the "innovative" pattern (Kulik & Rayyan, 2003).
Therefore, female primary and male secondary wage earners are a minority.
To date, no research has examined the possibility that knowledge about an employee’s
gender role incongruent behavior (in terms of women being primary wage earners in their
families and males being secondary wage earners) might affect these employees at work. Yet
evidence from studies on personal relationships and self-disclosure at work indicates that it may
be time for such a study because coworkers and supervisors are likely to know about an
employee’s home life. Self-disclosure is pervasive and pivotal in developing relationships at
Gender role incongruence
4
work (Tardy & Dindia, 2006). Self-disclosure at work frequently includes information about
families, households, and spouses (Hessing, 1991). Also, one of the most common illegal
interview questions is, “What does your spouse do?” (DeLuca, 1997; Fry, 2000). If people ask
job candidates about their spouse’s occupation during the interview process (when it is illegal to
do so), one can only assume that the frequency of this question after employment (when it is no
longer illegal to do so) would be equal or greater (Douglas, 1990; Mongeau & Henningsen,
2008; Sias & Cahill, 1998). Further, knowledge about others’ occupations can indirectly provide
salary information because people are well-informed about salaries through public sources (e.g.,
university placement centers, O*Net, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CNNMoney.com, Forbes.com).
Knowledge of such information by others at work could impact the employee because
there is research suggesting that when women act outside of their stereotypically ascribed gender
roles, others react harshly toward them (Heilman, 1995; Heilman & Chen, 2005). A common
explanation for harsh reactions toward women who do not conform to their traditional gender
role stereotypes is the lack of fit model (Dipboye, 1985; Heilman, 1983, 2001), which predicts
that people sense a mismatch between the target person’s group stereotype and the person’s
actual behavior (Dipboye, 1985; Heilman, 1983, 2001). When men are in stereotypically female
roles, people also react negatively to them. These men are more likely to be disrespected and
pressured to look for more masculine and prestigious work (Hultin, 2003; Williams, 1992). As
more females become primary wage earners and more males become secondary wage earners, it
remains to be seen how others in the workplace will react to them.
The purpose of this research is to analyze whether female primary wage earners and male
secondary wage earners are treated differently from their equally successful peers (i.e., peers
with exactly the same credentials and job performance) in the workplace. Specifically, are people
Gender role incongruence
5
surprised to see these individuals in these roles, do they think they are overqualified for their
jobs, and what kinds of reward recommendations (i.e., salary increases) do they receive relative
to their equally successful but role-conforming peers? I examine surprise because surprise
indicates sensing gender role incongruence (Heilman, 1983) and can lead to negative reactions
(Heilman et al., 2004). Perceived overqualification is important because it relates to reward
recommendations (Hultin, 2003; Williams, 1992). Finally, it is important to examine reward
recommendations in the form of salary. Although there are other rewards including promotions
and bonuses, I focus on salary because annual salary increases are the most widely used pay-for
performance plans (Milkovich & Newman, 2005), which means that employees go through the
an annual review process many times and the outcomes of that process accumulate over the
employee’s career (Gómez-Mejía, Balkin, & Cardy, 2007; Milkovich & Newman, 2005).
This study aims to make three main contributions. First, it examines a timely research
question as the numbers of female primary wage earners and male secondary wage earners grow
(Kulik & Rayyan, 2003; Winkler, 1998; Winkler et al., 2005). Second, it sheds light on how
female primary wage earners and male secondary wage earners are treated in work settings.
Aside from being morally wrong (Dipboye & Colella, 2005), workplace discrimination is illegal.
Discrimination meets the criteria for constituting a moral wrong partly because there is a social
consensus (Jones, 1991) that it is wrong (e.g., the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevent sex discrimination in employment; U.S. National Archives,
2009). Third, it is important to understand how female primary wage earners and male secondary
wage earners are treated in the workplace from a fairness perspective. Most employers present
their rewards policies as a meritocracy where top performers receive top rewards (Milkovich &
Newman, 2005). If managers discriminate against some employees on the basis that they violate
Gender role incongruence
6
norms pertaining to their sex, then this is not meritocratic it is unfair.
Theory and Hypotheses
In this section, I describe the basis for a type of discrimination against women that I refer
to as “home-related spillover discrimination.” This term is based on work pertaining to sex-role
spillover, which is the carryover of gender roles from society into the workplace (Gutek &
Cohen, 1987; Nieva & Gutek, 1981). Even in jobs that are neutral in terms of the sex
composition of those occupying those jobs, sex-role spillover can occur because employees have
their sex role and work role merged together (Gutek & Cohen, 1987). Therefore, the basis of
home-related spillover discrimination is in the gender incongruent behavior that female primary
wage earners exhibit. This argument is based on sex-role spillover effects as well as lack of fit.
According to Heilman’s lack of fit model (1983), when people observe others acting in a
way that is incongruent with their prescribed gender roles, they sense that something about that
person is not right and simply does not fit with how things ought to be. People form stereotypes
about groups of people in much the same way as they generalize about any aspect of their
environment. Categorizing people into groups is functional because it helps us make sense of the
world. Once categorized, we perceive and interpret the behavior of individual group members on
the basis of the general knowledge and the expectations that we hold about that group (Heilman,
1995). A common way in which we categorize others is based on sex because this is a readily-
observable, surface-level characteristic (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). This categorization
process then allows us to quickly recall the types of behavior that should be associated with a
person in that social category (i.e., a man or a woman). For example, adjectives used to describe
feminine behavior generally include nurturing, tender, understanding, concerned for others,
kind, helpful, and sympathetic. Adjectives used to describe masculine behavior generally
Gender role incongruence
7
include independent, decisive, ambitious, forceful, and aggressive (Heilman, 1995, 2001). There
is substantial evidence that these gender stereotypes affect the way that men and women are
perceived and treated in their daily lives (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000; Dipboye &
Colella, 2005; Heilman, 1995, 2001).
One way in which these stereotypes influence expectations about male and female
behavior is in the way we expect men and women to provide for their families. Males are
generally assumed to be the head of the household, providing for the family (Kroska, 2008).
Females are assumed to function in a more supportive role, either as stay-at-home mothers or as
secondary wage earners (Gerson, 1993; Henslin, 2007; Kroska, 2008; Rosen, 1987; Tichenor,
1999; Townsend, 2002; Weiss, 1987). These assumptions are supported by statistics showing
that, overwhelmingly, males are the primary wage earners in their families (Kulik & Rayyan,
2003; Winkler, 1998; Winkler et al., 2005). However, as more women enter the workforce, there
is some evidence that this is gradually changing.
Recent Changes in Gender Roles But Males Still Predominantly Primary Wage Earners
According to the lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983), people should be surprised to see
others who are exhibiting gender role incongruent behavior. As more women enter the workforce
and the roles of men and women change, people should express less surprise to see gender role
incongruent behavior in the form of female primary wage earners and male secondary wage
earners. However, population survey data still show that males are overwhelmingly the primary
wage earners in their families (Winkler et al., 2005).
Over the last 50 years in the United States, the percentage of married women who work
outside the home rose from 25% to 60% and the proportion of dual-earner couples increased
from 39% to 61% of all married couples (Winkler, 1998; Winkler et al., 2005). In addition, the
Gender role incongruence
8
proportion of married couples in which only the wife works rose to 7% by 2003 (Winkler et al.,
2005). In other words, gender roles in the family are slowly shifting as more women become the
primary wage earners and more men become the secondary wage earners. However, because
most men are still the primary breadwinners in 76% of American families (Winkler et al., 2005)
and because there is still a wage gap between the overall earnings of men and women (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2008, 2009), people should be more surprised to see female primary wage
earners and male secondary wage earners as compared to seeing male primary wage earners and
female secondary wage earners. Therefore, I propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: Participants will be more surprised to see female primary wage earners
and male secondary wage earners than female secondary wage earners and male
primary wage earners.
Reactions to Men and Women who Violate Gender Stereotypes
Research on gender in organizations has found that gender stereotypes impact the way
women are perceived and rewarded. There is a prescriptive component of gender stereotypes
suggesting how women should be and act (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995; Burgess & Borgida,
1999; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman & Glick, 2001).
Heilman et al. (2004) found that women in stereotypically male occupations who are
acknowledged to have been successful are more personally derogated than equally successful
men. Heilman and Chen (2005) further found that women are penalized when they behave
contrary to female stereotypes by failing to help others. Consistent with the expectation that
women should be helpful, kind, and sympathetic (Heilman, 2001), when women perform
citizenship behaviors such as helping others, they are not rewarded because people simply
assume that they are acting in accordance with female behavior. However, when women do not
Gender role incongruence
9
help others, they are given lower reward recommendations by others in the workplace for
violating the stereotypes that society holds about appropriate female behavior. In contrast, when
males do not help others, they are not penalized because the stereotypes that we hold about men
do not include males being concerned for others (Heilman & Chen, 2005). This demonstrates
that the stereotypes we hold about males and females lead us to react differently to women and
men even though they may be exhibiting the exact same behavior. Specifically, women are
punished when they deviate from the stereotypically female behavior. But what about men who
act against their stereotypical gender roles?
There is evidence to suggest that people will see males in the secondary wage earner role
as behaving incongruently with their gender roles and they may also see them as possibly being
overqualified for their roles. Because men have higher overall social status than women
(Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and men also tend
to hold more prestigious occupations than women (Catalyst, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Morrison,
White, & Van Velsor, 1992), male secondary wage earners are likely to be seen as even more
incongruent than female primary wage earners. Because men are afforded higher social capital
than women (Burt, 1998), it is possible that supervisors and coworkers may feel that these men
are more overqualified for their jobs than equally qualified female peers. Research shows that
when people sense that they are overqualified for their jobs (an incongruence between personal
qualifications and the job), they become dissatisfied and are motivated to do something to fix it
(Erdogan & Bauer, 2009; Fine & Nevo, 2008; Johnson & Johnson, 1996, 2000). Likewise, if
people perceive that males in a secondary wage earner status are overqualified for their roles,
they may become motivated to help them improve their situation.
Both males and females who are in non-traditional occupations for their gender are
Gender role incongruence
10
viewed by others as not fitting in. As Heilman (1995) states, there is simply a notion that things
should not be this way and hence there is a lack of fit. This perception that there is a lack of fit
can lead to assessments of the appropriateness of the target person’s job situation and,
potentially, to discriminatory workplace evaluations (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman & Eagly,
2008). However, whereas men who are secondary wage earners should be seen as lagging behind
their wives and being overqualified for their current situation, women who are primary wage
earners should be seen as exceeding their career and salary expectations for their traditional role.
This is consistent with research showing that the idea of male breadwinners/primary wage
earners is firmly entrenched in society (Gerson, 1993; Henslin, 2007; Kroska, 2008; Rosen,
1987; Tichenor, 1999; Townsend, 2002; Weiss, 1987) and that even when men are unemployed
they still “construct their gender identity around the breadwinner persona” (Willott & Griffin,
2004, p. 53). This is also consistent with research showing that “women receive more praise than
men for their incomes” (Deutsch, Roska, & Meeske, 2003, p. 291), which suggests that while
making money is simply assumed for men, women who make money are somehow seen as
praiseworthy and excelling in their careers beyond standard expectations for their gender role.
For these reasons, people may feel that women who are the primary wage earners in their
families have achieved enough while men who are the secondary wage earners in their families
have underachieved and are overqualified for their positions. Women who are the secondary
wage earners and men who are the primary wage earners are conforming to their expected
gender roles and should be seen as a good fit with their jobs in the sense that they are neither
highly overqualified nor underqualified (Dipboye, 1985; Heilman, 1983, 2001). Therefore, I
propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Male secondary wage earners will be given the highest ratings for being
Gender role incongruence
11
overqualified for their jobs while female primary wage earners will be given the lowest
ratings for being overqualified for their jobs by participants. Male primary wage earners
and female secondary wage earners are role conforming and should elicit medium
ratings for being overqualified for their jobs from participants.
Violating Gender Stereotypes and Reward Recommendations
Reward recommendations are those incentives that an employee receives through the
employer’s pay-for-performance system. Pay-for-performance systems reward employees on the
basis that individuals differ on how much they contribute to the organization, that individual
performance is linked to the overall organizational performance, and that in order to be fair to all
employees the organization needs to reward its employees in a manner commensurate to their
level of performance (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Gómez-Mejía, Welbourne, & Wiseman, 2000;
Ray & Altmansberger, 1999). In this study, I focus on individual reward recommendations that
could be made for an employee as part of the annual review process and how knowledge about
an employee’s gender role incongruence may influence such reward recommendations.
For females, the idea that acting against gender roles turns into lower reward
recommendations has received empirical support. Heilman et al. (2004) found that women who
were successful in stereotypically male jobs were given lower reward recommendations than
their equally successful male peers. Heilman and Chen (2005) found that when women do not
help others, they are given lower reward recommendations than their male counterparts.
For males in non-traditional occupations, the outcomes they will receive in terms of
reward recommendations are complex. Because of their gender role incongruence, people may
feel that there is something about the situation that does not fit the way things should be
(Heilman et al., 2004; Williams, 1992). This incongruence should prevail when evaluating men
Gender role incongruence
12
who are secondary wage earners in their families because that is the traditionally female role.
The research discussed above implies that people would simultaneously perceive that the jobs
these males hold are beneath them and that they need to start doing better. Supervisors and
coworkers are more likely to feel that male secondary wage earners are overqualified for their
jobs because they suffer by comparison to their wives and are not fulfilling the bread-winner role
(Kroska, 2008). For these reasons, people may decide that they need to help these men be
adequately rewarded by giving them higher reward recommendations.
However, I also propose that the opposite will be true for female primary wage earners.
While male secondary wage earners will be seen as lagging behind their wives, female primary
wage earners will shine in comparison to their husbands and people may believe that they have
been extremely successful in their careers. This may create the illusion that these women are
doing so well that they have achieved enough and really do not need any further rewards for two
reasons. The first is the lack of fit model (Dipboye, 1985; Heilman 1983, 2001) and the fact that
women who achieve in male-dominated domains are often penalized. According to Heilman and
Okimoto (2007, pp. 81-82) it is not “necessary for women to actually behave counternormatively
to induce social penalties; the mere knowledge that a woman has been successful in a male
domain produces inferences that she has engaged in stereotype-violating behavior, resulting in
social penalties.”
The second reason why people may feel that women primary wage earners have achieved
beyond expectations and do not need further rewards is because when women become much
more successful than their husbands, this might cause problems in the marriage. For example,
women in the African-American community have a long tradition of employment, sometimes
because African-American men face workplace racial discrimination and do not make high
Gender role incongruence
13
enough wages to support the family (Cole & Guy-Sheftall, 2003; Collins, 2000). Some African-
American working women have reported that spending too much time working has been seen as
encroaching on the male breadwinner role, thus resulting in marital conflict (Cole & Guy-
Sheftall, 2003; Collins, 2000). This is also consistent with important research on “the second
shift” (Hochschild, 1989), which shows that while men do their fair share of the housework
when both spouses work and make roughly equal amounts of money, when women make more
money than the men, women once again take on a disproportionate amount of the housework
(Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre, & Matheson, 2003). According to Bittman et al. (2003, p.
186), in households where the woman makes more than half of the family income, the
housework again shifts mostly to the woman as if to compensate for this gender role
incongruence and ensure their spouses do not feel emasculated.
All of these ideas about what masculine and feminine behavior should look like (Burgess
& Borgida, 1999; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001; Rudman & Glick, 2001) can potentially
conspire against female primary wage earners and influence people to under-reward them in
order to keep them from getting too far ahead of their husbands. For these reasons, it is possible
that women who are primary wage earners will be penalized while male secondary wage earners
will be over-rewarded compared to their equally qualified and successful female peers. Again,
male primary wage earners and female secondary wage earners are acting according to their
gender roles and hence they should receive medium reward recommendations. Therefore, I
propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Males who are the secondary wage earners in their families will be given
the highest reward recommendations from participants while females who are the
primary wage earners will be given the lowest reward recommendations. Male primary
Gender role incongruence
14
wage earners and female secondary wage earners are role conforming and will be given
medium reward recommendations by participants.
The Moderating Role of Participant Sex
Researchers who study sex roles have identified many ways in which males and females
are systematically socialized in different ways. In order to understand male and female
interactions within organizational settings, it is important to understand this socialization
process, because “individuals do not leave their gender … identities at the door when they enter
an organization” (Nkomo & Cox, 1996, p. 342). Of particular relevance are findings describing
the way that male and female children learn to play, because this is one area where children learn
early on what it means to act masculine and feminine.
For example, researchers who study communication patterns in children’s play have
observed that male and female children tend to play different kinds of games with different rules
(Bronstein, 2006; Leaper & Friedman, 2007; Maltz & Borker, 1982; Nutt & Brooks, 2008;
Morrongiello & Dawber, 1999; Wood, Desmarais, & Gugula, 2002). Most boys’ games are
competitive, have clear goals, and are organized by specific rules. Girls’ games, on the other
hand, often do not have clear-cut goals or rules but instead emphasize collaboration, cooperation,
sensitivity to feelings, and inclusion of others (Wood, 1994). “Whereas boys learn that they have
to do something to be valuable, the lesson for girls is to be. Their worth depends on being good
people, which is defined as being cooperative, inclusive, and sensitive” (Wood, 1994, p. 141).
Given these findings, it seems reasonable to expect that males and females might react
differently to others in an organizational setting depending upon the target’s sex and wage earner
status. In particular, because men are often socialized to behave in more competitive ways than
women (Maltz & Borker, 1982; Wood, 1994) and because men also identify strongly with the
Gender role incongruence
15
primary breadwinner role (Willott & Griffin, 2004), it is likely that men will hold higher
expectations of other men than of women in terms of their capacity to provide for their families.
Men may be especially likely to react toward male secondary wage earners in such a way that
they are the most surprised to see them in these positions, feel that they are the most
overqualified for their jobs, and reward them the most. Therefore, I predict the following:
Hypothesis 4: There will be a three-way interaction of target person sex, target person
wage earner status, and participant sex such that male participants will: a) be the most
surprised to see male secondary wage earners, b) be the most likely to say that male
secondary wage earners are overqualified for their jobs, and c) give the highest
rewards to male secondary wage earners compared to female participants.
Method
Participants and Design
Participants were 312 male and female juniors and seniors in a business course at a large
university in the South who participated for class extra credit during the spring of 2008.
However, six participants were dropped from the study because they failed one or more
manipulation checks. Thus, the final sample included 306 participants. Of these, 61% were
females and 39% were males. Most participants (84%) were Caucasian. In all, 61% of
participants had at least one year of full-time work experience while 81% had at least one year of
part-time work experience. The average age of participants was 21.
In order to test the hypotheses, a 2 x 2 x 2 between-participant factorial design was used.
The independent variables were target employee sex (male or female), target employee wage
earner status (primary or secondary wage earner), and participant sex (male or female).
Participants were randomly assigned to conditions.
Gender role incongruence
16
Procedure
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase of the study was a web survey
that included demographics such as sex (coded as 0 = female, 1 = male) as well as a question
asking participants to rate the social status of men and women in society as most people see them
on a scale from 1 = low status, to 4 = neither high nor low status, to 7 = high status. In order to
avoid a demand characteristic (Fisher, 1984), this question also asked participants to rate the
status of various other groups (e.g., Caucasians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans), and these
questions were mixed together with items about modern racism, authoritarianism, and political
opinions. In addition, there was a four- to six-week time gap between the web survey (first
phase) and the second phase of the study.
For the second phase of the study, participants signed up for one of several times slots in
which to come to a classroom and complete the study. Upon arrival, they were asked to complete
a packet with a work-related scenario and some questions about the scenario. After participants
completed the packet, they were given a debriefing sheet about the study, thanked for their
participation, and asked not to speak with others in their class about the study.
The Phase 2 stimulus materials were as follows. The first part of the scenario included a
description of a fictitious organization and explained to the participants that they were being
asked to rate one of the individuals in the role of Corporate Training Manager. This job title was
selected based on the neutral job scenario (i.e., neither a masculine nor a feminine job) used by
Heilman et al. (2004). The neutral job was selected so that the results would likely be due to the
manipulation of the independent variables as opposed to reactions to the gender of the job
(Heilman et al., 2004). While Heilman et al. (2004) used the title “Assistant VP of Training,” a
high corporate-level position for their job title, I changed the title to a lower-level manager
Gender role incongruence
17
position “Corporate Training Manager.” Because the manipulation for this study requires a job
that could be occupied by either a primary wage earner or a secondary wage earner, having a
lower-level title made it more believable that an individual occupying this job could be the
secondary wage earner in their family.
In order to avoid confounding reactions to the wage earner status with reactions to the
gender of the job, it was important to use a gender neutral job description. Following Heilman et
al. (2004), the neutrality of the job was established not only through the job title but also through
two pieces of information given in the background about the fictitious company. First, the
background information stated that of the employees who occupied the position of Corporate
Training Manager, 53% were male and 47% were female. Second, the stimulus materials
included ten names of current Corporate Training Managers, with the participants being asked to
rate only one of the names). Of the ten names, there were four overtly male names (Michael
Edwards, Nathan Adams, John Stevens, David Jones), four overtly female names (Karen Parker,
Nancy Smith, Andrea Washington, Jessica Johnson), and two gender neutral names (Pat Hill,
Sam Jenkins). The choice of names was patterned after the manipulation in Heilman et al. (2004)
as well as the most popular baby names during the years when the participants would have been
born (U.S. Social Security Administration, 2009).
The independent variable, target employee sex, was manipulated using the employee
name (Michael Edwards or Jessica Johnson). The independent variable, target employee wage
earner status, was manipulated by providing two pieces of information. First, both the salary of
the employee being evaluated and the total annual household income for that employee were
provided. When the employee was the primary wage earner, the scenario stated that the
employee's annual salary was $100,000 and that the total annual income for their household was
Gender role incongruence
18
$150,000. When the employee was the secondary wage earner, the scenario stated that the
employee's annual salary was $50,000 and that the total annual income for their household was
$150,000. Second, the scenario also contained a statement that explicitly stated whether the
employee was the primary wage earner or the secondary wage earner in the family.
In addition, it was important to demonstrate that the target employee was competent in
his/her job in order to avoid negative reactions to women due to ambiguous statements about
their competence (Davison & Burke, 2000). Thus, participants were given a description of job
responsibilities and told that the employee had recently gone through the organizational review
process and been rated as a stellar performer. The rest of the information in the scenario was
identical across all conditions and included birth place, college attended, degree, GPA, number
of employees managed, and years of job tenure. See the Appendix for the complete scenario.
Dependent Measures
Surprise. To test if participants were surprised to see female primary wage earners and
male secondary wage earners, I used one item from Heilman et al. (2004): "How surprised were
you to find this individual in this wage earner status?" (1 = not at all to 9 = very much).
Perceived overqualification. In order to measure whether male secondary wage earners
would be seen as overqualified while female primary wage earners would not be seen as
overqualified, I created two items: "This job is beneath this individual." (1 = not at all to 9 =
very much) and "This individual should aim to get a better job." (1 = not at all to 9 = very much).
The reliability for these two items was α = .75 (Cronbach, 1951).
Reward recommendations. To measure specific reward recommendations, I used the
measure from Ivancevich (1983), where participants were asked to allocate a reward ranging
between 0 and 20% using five percentage point intervals: “What percentage of salary merit
Gender role incongruence
19
increase do you recommend for this individual?”
Finally, although employee evaluations (i.e., job performance) were not a dependent
variable, I used Heilman et al.’s (2004) measure of employee evaluations to ensure that
participants perceived that the employees in all four conditions were performing equally. The
items included: "Overall, how would you rate this individual?” (1 = very low to 9 = very high),
"Rate this individual's potential to excel in his/her career.” (1 = very low to 9 = very high), "How
successful do you think this individual will be in this organization?” (1 = not at all to 9 = very
much), "To what degree do you recommend retaining this individual in the organization?" (1 =
not at all to 9 = very much), and “This individual is a good performer." (1 = not at all to 9 = very
much). The reliability for this measure was α = .89.
Results
In the following analyses, I present eta-squared (η2) values for all analyses of variance.
These values are eta-squared as computed in Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), not partial eta-
squared values. Thus, the effect sizes reported are conservative because partial eta-squared
values are typically larger than eta-squared values (Pierce, Block, & Aguinis, 2004). In addition,
I report Cohen’s d as the measure of the effect size when comparing across the condition means
because Cohen’s d is meant to compare the means of two different groups (Cohen, 1988).
Manipulation checks
Two manipulation checks were included. The manipulation check for sex was: “This
individual was a male.” (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). An analysis of variance
(ANOVA) indicated that the manipulation was effective F(1, 304) = 5339.03, p < .05, η2 = .95,
with participants in the condition where the target employee was a female (M = 1.21, SD = .78)
being much less likely to agree than the participants in the condition where the target employee
Gender role incongruence
20
was a male (M = 6.80, SD = .54).
The manipulation check for primary wage earner status was: "This individual is the
primary wage earner in their family.” (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). An ANOVA
showed that the manipulation was effective F(1, 304) = 3411.42, p < .05, η2 = .92, with
participants in the primary wage earner conditions (M = 6.59, SD = .82) being much more likely
to agree than the participants in the secondary wage earner conditions (M = 1.37, SD = .34).
In addition to these two manipulation checks, I included three other robustness checks.
First, because the scenario aimed to establish gender neutrality for the Corporate Training
Manager position, participants were asked: “The people holding this job were ___________.” (7
point scale ranging from 1=all males to 4=about equal numbers of males and females to 7=all
females). Responses to this question show that participants noticed that the job was gender
neutral (M = 4.02, SD = .57). I conducted a one-sample t-test in SPSS, where I defined a test
value of 4, which represents the gender neutral answer on the scale, and I had SPSS determine
whether the mean for this question was significantly different from 4. Results showed that the
mean score was not significantly different from 4 (t = .61, p > .05). As a second check, I wanted
to be sure that all candidates were seen as equally successful in terms of their job performance.
An ANOVA on employee evaluations using the condition as the independent variable showed no
differences across the conditions, indicating that the candidates in all four scenarios were seen as
equally qualified performers, F(3, 302) = 1.75, p > .05, η2 = .02. Third, because I made the
assumption in the theory section of the paper that men have higher social status and hence higher
social capital than women, I compared participants’ answers about the overall status of men and
women in society (collected in Phase 1). Mean status for men was 6.02, SD = 1.08 while mean
status for women was 5.14, SD = 1.07, and this difference was statistically significant (t = 15.33,
Gender role incongruence
21
p < .05) indicating that participants agree that men have higher social status than women.
Data Analysis
Table 1 displays the mean, standard deviation, and the correlations for all measures. A
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on each of the three dependent
variables: surprise, perceived overqualification, and reward recommendations. Results indicated
significant main effects for target sex F(1,298) = 10.25, p < .05, target wage earner status
F(1,298) = 12.52, p < .05, participant sex F(1,298) = 5.56, p < .05, the interaction of target sex
and target wage earner status, F(1,298) = 13.38, p < .05), and the interaction of target sex, target
wage earner status, and participant sex F(1,298) = 2.82, p < .05. Univariate analyses of variance
and covariance (ANOVAS and ANCOVAs) were then conducted on each of the dependent
measures using the step-down approach recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), which
takes correlations between multiple dependent variables into account. In this step-down
procedure, priorities are assigned to the dependent variables (I assigned surprise as the top
priority followed by overqualification and reward recommendations). Then, the highest priority
dependent variable was tested in a univariate ANOVA while the others were tested in a series of
ANCOVAs with the higher priority dependent variables included as covariates. Inter-cell
comparisons were also made in order to directly test Hypotheses 1-3.
Surprise. An ANOVA on surprise to see the target person in the wage earner status
showed no significant main effect of target sex, no significant main effect of participant sex, a
significant main effect of target wage earner status, a significant target sex x target wage earner
status interaction, and a significant target sex x target wage earner status x participant sex
interaction (see Table 2A for the ANOVA, Figure 1A for a plot of the two-way interaction, and
Figure 2 for the three-way interaction). Inter-cell comparisons using an ANOVA with Tukey’s
Gender role incongruence
22
post hoc tests showed some significant differences between cells, F(3,302) = 16.96, p < .05. As
shown in Table 3, participants were the most surprised to see male secondary wage earners (the
mean for this cell was significantly higher than that of the female secondary wage earner, d =
.92, the male primary wage earner, d = 1.07, and the female primary wage earner, d = .47).
Participants were significantly more surprised to see female primary wage earners than female
secondary wage earners, d = .42, and male primary wage earners, d = .56. However, participants
did not report differences on surprise between male primary wage earners and female secondary
wage earners, d = -.15. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Although there was a significant
three-way interaction on surprise, contrary to what was hypothesized, the plot shows that the
female participants had a stronger reaction to the male targets in the scenario than did the male
participants. This provides no support for Hypothesis 4a.
Perceived overqualification. An ANCOVA on perceptions of overqualification with
surprise as a control showed a significant main effect of surprise, a significant main effect of
target sex, a significant main effect of target wage earner status, a significant main effect of
participant sex, and a significant target sex x target wage earner status interaction (see Table 2B
for the ANCOVA and Figure 1B for the interaction). Inter-cell comparisons were run with an
ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc tests. This showed that there were some significant differences
between cells, F(3,302) = 16.02, p < .05. As shown in Table 3, participants were the least likely
to say that female primary wage earners were overqualified (the mean for this cell was
significantly lower than that of the female secondary wage earner, d = -.67, as well as the male
primary wage earner, d = -.41, and the male secondary wage earner, d = -1.15). Participants were
significantly more likely to say that male secondary wage earners were more overqualified than
female secondary wage earners, d = .46, as well as male primary wage earners, d = .66
Gender role incongruence
23
However, participants did not report significant differences on overqualification for male
primary wage earners and female secondary wage earners, d = -.22. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was
supported. No three-way interaction was found on overqualification controlling for surprise.
Therefore, Hypothesis 4b was not supported.
Reward recommendations. An ANCOVA on reward recommendations with surprise and
perceived overqualification as controls showed no main effect for surprise, a significant main
effect for perceived overqualification, a significant main effect of target sex as well as target
wage earner status, no significant main effect of participant sex, no significant target sex x target
wage earner status interaction, and no significant target sex x target wage earner status x
participant sex interaction (see Table 2C for the ANCOVA). Cross-cell comparisons using an
ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc tests showed some significant differences between cells,
F(3,302) = 12.41, p < .05. As shown in Table 3, participants gave male secondary wage earners
higher rewards than female primary wage earners, d = .96, female secondary wage earners, d =
.51, and male primary wage earners, d = .44. Female primary wage earners received significantly
lower reward recommendations than male primary wage earners, d = -.53, and female secondary
wage earners, d = -.49. Finally, there were no differences between the reward recommendations
of male primary wage earners and female secondary wage earners, d = .05. Therefore,
Hypothesis 3 was supported. No three-way interaction was found on reward recommendations
controlling for surprise and perceived overqualification. Therefore, Hypothesis 4c was not
supported.
Discussion
The results of this study mostly support the hypotheses. Participants were more surprised
to see female primary wage earners and male secondary wage earners than male primary wage
Gender role incongruence
24
earners and female secondary wage earners. Participants were most likely to say that male
secondary wage earners were overqualified for their jobs and that female primary wage earners
were not overqualified compared to equally performing peers. Male secondary wage earners
received the highest rewards while female primary wage earners received the lowest rewards.
Finally, results did not support the proposed three-way interaction of participant sex x target sex
x target wage earner status on the three dependent variables. While a significant three-way
interaction was found for the surprise dependent variable, it was not in the predicted direction
(possible reasons for this are discussed below).
Implications for Theory
Theoretically, the results demonstrate how the lack of fit model (Dipboye, 1985;
Heilman, 1983, 2001) can be applied to settings where gender-incongruent behavior extends into
the work situation to produce ramifications for the employee. While previous research has
investigated men and women’s incongruent behavior within their job-related roles and duties,
this study shows that acting outside of one’s prescribed gender role in terms of family wage
earner status can produce consequences at work. This is similar to other findings showing how
workplace discrimination may result from a spillover of gender role expectations from society
being manifest at work (Nieva & Gutek, 1980) and how sexual orientation in one’s personal life
can lead to penalties at work (Ragins & Wiethoff, 2005). However, this is the first study to show
how violating stereotypical roles in terms of family wage earner status can have effects at work.
A second theoretical implication of this study is that gender bias and an awareness of
status differentials exist even among young people in the United States today (recall that the
average age of the participants was 21). The pattern of main effects found for the reward
recommendations dependent variable indicates that while some attention was given to need and
Gender role incongruence
25
fairness (in that there was a main effect of secondary wage earners getting higher rewards), there
was also a main effect of sex (in that males got higher rewards than females). This suggests that
although the participants were young, they still showed bias by rewarding males somewhat more
than females.
However, one other finding that is interesting to note theoretically is that there was a
three-way interaction of participant sex x target sex x target wage earner status for the surprise
dependent variable (Figure 2). The lowest levels of surprise were reported by female participants
rating male primary wage earners, whereas the highest levels of surprise were rated by female
participants rating male secondary wage earners. Perhaps this is because women are accustomed
to seeing men in positions of power (Catalyst, 2009a, 2009b, 2010). The finding that women are
more surprised than men to see male secondary wage earners and less surprised than men to see
male primary wage earners is similar to other findings in the discrimination literature showing
that members of the lower status social group are particularly attentive to the outcomes of their
own group members compared to those of the dominant group members because they are used to
seeing discrepancies in treatment (Crosby, 1984; Feagin & Sikes, 1994).
Implications for Practice
The practical implication of this finding is that this may present a new form of sex
discrimination, referred to here as “home-related spillover discrimination,” against women,
which has not yet been considered. If characteristics of an employee’s home life which are
irrelevant to job-related performance (such as being a female primary wage earner) lead to
women incurring penalties at work, then exhibiting gender-role incongruence in terms of wage
earner status in the family could result in a new form of sex discrimination in addition to what
we already know about sex discrimination at work (Cleveland et al., 2000; Cleveland, Vescio, &
Gender role incongruence
26
Barnes-Farrell, 2005).
Furthermore, it is important to note two more things from a practical perspective. First,
the results of this study may be conservative. Note that the manipulation used in this study
presented a scenario where the candidates (both men and women) were unambiguously and
highly qualified for their jobs. Heilman (2001, p. 661) notes that when women demonstrate that
they are successful at masculine types of jobs they are seen as “having what it takes to succeed at
‘man’s work,’ eradicating any perceived lack of fit deriving from the descriptive aspect of
gender stereotypes.” The fact that the manipulation in this study presented the female primary
wage earner as unquestionably qualified for her job means that it should have been harder to
detect effects, thereby making this a conservative test. Had the female primary wage earner’s job
performance been ambiguous, the penalties against her would have likely been greater. This
suggests that review and reward recommendations in work settings should always be made with
the most complete performance information available.
Second, the manipulation in this study, which showed evidence of the female primary
wage earner succeeding in the stereotypically male domain, could explain the small effect sizes
found in the study. Although the effect sizes presented in this study are the more conservative
eta-squared values, the effect sizes are still small. However, in terms of practical implications,
these small effects can be substantial. Research has noted that micro inequities (Haslett &
Lipman, 1997) can accumulate and change the way the target is treated and feels at work over
time. Small differences in wages can have a large cumulative effect over a person’s working life.
Small amounts of discrimination can also have large impacts on companies. A simulation by
Martell, Lane, and Willis (1992) found that rating biases against women of 4% or smaller could
lead to violations of the 4/5 rule of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and skew
Gender role incongruence
27
sex composition at the top levels of the organization. Therefore, this is a case where small effect
sizes can have a large practical impact.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research
The primary strength of this study lies in its experimental design (Kerlinger & Lee,
2000). The independent variables, target sex and wage earner status, were experimentally
manipulated, which greatly improved the internal validity of the study. The participants were
also randomly assigned to conditions. However, the limitation of an experimental design lies in
its generalizability. Although the study captured the reactions that people have to female primary
wage earners and male secondary wage earners in a controlled experimental setting, it remains to
be seen how this will generalize to real workplace settings. The sample used in this study
consisted of college students at a politically conservative university and therefore may not
generalize to some employment settings. Ideally, future research could replicate these findings
with employees in an actual work setting.
Another limitation is that while sex is generally a very salient characteristic that can be
easily ascertained by others in the workplace, the identification of wage earner status is likely to
be more subtle in a real-world setting. However, in an organizational setting the people who are
most likely to know whether someone is the primary wage earner in their family are those who
work closely enough with that employee to know about their family background. This would
likely include people on the same project team, people within the same reporting structure, and
the employee's supervisor. These individuals who would know the most about the employee's
family life are also the people who are in a position to judge the employee's performance and
provide feedback for the annual review process. Still, although I argue that colleagues at work
are likely to know about an employee’s wage earner status through self-disclosure (Hessing,
Gender role incongruence
28
1991; Tardy & Dindia, 2006), the base rate with which this information is disclosed in work
settings is unknown. Future research may investigate how often people disclose wage earner
status information to their colleagues.
A similar problem to the home-related spillover discrimination described in this study
might also affect gay and lesbian employees in the workplace. Because they, too, exhibit
incongruence to the traditional gender roles for their sex and they may also choose to self-
disclose their sexual orientation to others at work, they may face similar difficulties. The degree
to which such home-related spillover discrimination based on gender role incongruence in sexual
orientation occurs in the workplace would best be studied in future field research, assuming such
data could be made available to a researcher.
One other limitation of the study is the use of single-item measures for surprise and
reward recommendations. A limitation of this approach is that inter-item reliability for the scale
cannot be estimated. However, although this is a limitation, several studies have also
demonstrated that single-item measures can be both valid and reliable (Robins, Hendin, &
Trzesniewski, 2001; Wanous & Hudy, 2001; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). In addition,
especially for recommended salary increases, it is difficult to ask participants to state a
percentage increase in more than one way without being too repetitive, which is probably why
others have used single-item measures in the past (Ivancevich, 1983).
Another relevant avenue for future research could be to study female-only wage earners
with husbands who are stay-at-home dads. Not only are females increasingly becoming the
primary wage earners, but they are also increasingly becoming the only wage earner. The U.S.
Census indicates an 18% increase in the number of stay-at-home dads from 1994 to 2001 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2002). By 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 159,000 men had stayed
Gender role incongruence
29
out of the labor force for more than a year in order to take care of their children (Rochlen,
Suizzo, McKelley, & Scaringi, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Couples in which the male is a
homemaker and the female is the primary wage earner are challenging the traditional gender
stereotypes about the male being the financial head of the household (Robertson & Verschelden,
1993). It would be fruitful to investigate how people react to female sole wage earners married to
stay-at-home dads. It might also be interesting to study coworker reactions to other non-
traditional family arrangements such as reactions to single mothers versus single fathers.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to begin to understand possible sources of discrimination
in a work setting based on incongruent gender roles in terms of family wage earner status.
Results suggest that gender-incongruent behavior in family wage earner status may serve to
punish and under-reward female primary wage earners at work and over-reward male secondary
wage earners. These results suggest that acting outside of your family gender role could in fact
hurt you at work, if you are a woman. This study has uncovered a potential bias that people in
the workplace may hold against those who violate their traditional gender stereotypes in their
family life, resulting in home-related spillover discrimination. The first step in preventing such
an insidious type of workplace discrimination is to demonstrate that the problem exists in a
controlled experimental setting such as this study.
Gender role incongruence
30
References
Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert
discrimination (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender
trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology,
109, 186-214.
Bronstein, P. (2006). The family environment: Where gender role socialization begins.
In J. Worell & C. Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological
health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan (pp. 262271). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and
prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 5, 665692.
Burt, R. S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10, 5-46.
Catalyst. (2009a). 2009 Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women board directors.
Catalyst. (2009b). 2009 Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women executive officers and top earners.
Catalyst. (2010). Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000.
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/322/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000.
Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex
and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cleveland, J. N., Vescio, T. K., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2005). Gender discrimination in
organizations. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The
psychological and organizational bases (pp. 149-176). Mahwah, NJ: The Society for
Gender role incongruence
31
Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York:
Academic Press.
Cole, J. B., & Guy-Sheftall, B. (2003). Gender talk: The struggle for women's equality in African
American communities. New York: Random House.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-334.
Crosby, F. J. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 51-93). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A
meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
DeLuca, M. J. (1997). Best answers to the 201 most frequently asked interview questions. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Deutsch, F. M., Roska, J., & Meeske, C. (2003). How gender counts when couples count their
money. Sex Roles, 48, 291-304.
Dipboye, R. L. (1985). Some neglected variables in research on unfair discrimination in
appraisals. Academy of Management Review, 10, 116-127.
Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). Discrimination at work: The psychological and
organizational bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Douglas, W. (1990). Uncertainty, information-seeking, and liking during initial interaction.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 66-81.
Gender role incongruence
32
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573598.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2009). Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: The
moderating role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 557-565.
Feagin, J. R., & Sikes, M. P. (1994). Living with racism: The black middle-class experience.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Fine, S., & Nevo, B. (2008). Too smart for their own good? A study of perceived cognitive
overqualification in the workforce. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19, 346-355.
Fisher, C. D. (1984). Laboratory experimentation. In T. S. Bateman, & G. R. Ferris (Eds.),
Method and analysis in organizational research (pp. 169-285). Reston, VA: Reston
Publishing.
Fry, R. (2000). 101 greatest answers to the toughest interview questions (4th ed.). Franklin
Lakes, NJ: The Career Press Inc.
Gerson, K. (1993). No man’s land: Men’s changing commitments to family and work. New York:
Basic Books.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 491-512.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Cardy, R. L. (2007). Managing human resources (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Welbourne, T., & Wiseman, R. (2000). Gainsharing and employee risk
takings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 492-509.
Gutek, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1987). Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison
Gender role incongruence
33
of men's and women's experiences. Human Relations, 40, 97-115.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group cohesion. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 96-107.
Haslett, B. B., & Lipman, S. (1997). Micro inequities: Up close and personal. In N. V.
Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism. Current practices and prospects for change, 34-53.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298.
Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and
what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 3-26.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s
ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to
men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
431-441.
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing
workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 393-398.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?
The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81-92.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 416-427.
Gender role incongruence
34
Henslin, J. M. (2007). Down to earth sociology (14th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Hessing, M. (1991). Talking shop(ping): Office conversations and women's dual labour.
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 16, 23-50.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New
York: Viking Penguin Inc.
Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Career
consequences of occupational sex segregation. Work and Occupations, 30, 30-61.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1983). Contrast effects in performance evaluation and reward practices.
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 465-476.
Johnson, G. J., & Johnson, W. R. (1996). Perceived overqualification and psychological well-
being. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 435-445.
Johnson, G. J., & Johnson, W. R. (2000). Perceived overqualification, positive and negative
affectivity, and satisfaction with work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15,
167-184.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-
contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. South Melbourne,
Australia: Wadsworth.
Kroska, A. (2008). Examining husband-wife differences in the meaning of family financial
support. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 63-90.
Kulik, L., & Rayyan, F. (2003). Wage-earning patterns, perceived division of domestic labor,
and social support: A comparative analysis of educated Jewish and Arab-Muslim Israelis.
Sex Roles, 48, 53-66.
Gender role incongruence
35
Leaper, C., & Friedman, C. K. (2007). The socialization of gender. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D.
Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 561-587). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.
J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Willis, C. E. (1992). Demonstrating the danger of using "variance
explained" to assess the practical significance of research findings: A little sex bias can
hurt women a lot. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University.
Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (2005). Compensation (8th ed.), Plano, TX: B.P.I.
Mongeau, P. A., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2008). Stage theories of relationship development:
Charting the course of interpersonal communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite
(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp.
363-375). Los Angeles: Sage.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women
reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
Morrongiello, B. A., & Dawber, T. (1999). Parental influences on toddlers' injury-risk behaviors:
Are sons and daughters socialized differently? Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 20, 227-251.
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 267276.
Nkomo, S., & Cox, T. (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W.
Gender role incongruence
36
Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 338-356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Nutt, R. L., & Brooks, G. R. (2008). Psychology of gender. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.)
Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 176-193). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared
values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64, 916-924.
Ragins, B. R., & Wiethoff, C. (2005). Understanding heterosexism at work: The straight
problem. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The
psychological and organizational bases (pp. 177-202). Mahwah, NJ: The Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Ray, H. H., & Altmansberger, H. N. (1999). Introducing goalsharing in a public sector
organization. Compensation and Benefits Review, 31, 40-45.
Robertson, J. M., & Verschelden, C. (1993). Voluntary male homemakers and female providers:
Reported experiences and perceived social reactions. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 1,
383-402.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem:
Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.
Rochlen, A. B., Suizzo, M., McKelley, R. A., & Scaringi, V. (2008). I'm just providing for my
family: A qualitative study of stay-at-home fathers. Journal of Men & Masculinity, 9,
193-206.
Rosen, E. (1987). Bitter choices: Blue-collar women in and out of work. Chicago, IL: University
Gender role incongruence
37
of Chicago Press.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743762.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer
friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 273.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Tardy, C., & Dindia, K. (2006). Self-disclosure: Strategic revelation of personal information in
personal and professional relationships. In O. Hargie (Ed.), A handbook of
communication skills (3rd ed.) (pp. 229-266). London: Routledge.
Tichenor, V. J. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 638650.
Townsend, N. W. (2002). The package deal: Marriage, work, and fatherhood in men’s lives.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2002). Children’s living arrangements and characteristics: Current
population reports (pp. 20547). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Current population survey: Annual social and economic
supplement. http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar06.pdf.
U. S. Department of Labor. (2008). Household data annual averages. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
U. S. Department of Labor. (2009). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2008. Report 1017.
Gender role incongruence
38
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
U.S. National Archives. (2009). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act.
U.S. Social Security Administration, (2009). Popular baby names.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames.
Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361-375.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.
Weiss, R. S. (1987). Men and their wives’ work. In F. J. Crosby (Ed.), Spouse, parent, worker
(pp. 109-121). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female”
professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.
Willott, S., & Griffin, C. (2004). Redundant men: Constraints on identity change. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 53-69.
Winkler, A. E. (1998). Earnings of husbands and wives in dual-earner families. Monthly Labor
Review, 121, 42-48.
Winkler, A. E., McBride, T. D., & Andrews, C. (2005). Wives who outearn their husbands: A
transitory or persistent phenomenon for couples? Demography, 42, 523-536.
Wood, E., Desmarais, S., & Gugula, S. (2002). The impact of parenting experience on gender
stereotyped toy play of children. Sex Roles, 47, 39-49.
Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gender role incongruence
39
Appendix
The Scenario
The ABC Corporation, based in Dallas, TX, has just completed its annual review process
whereby all of its employees receive their yearly performance reviews. There are several
Corporate Training Managers within the Human Resources Training Division who supervise
training teams. The average age of the Corporate Training Managers is 38 years, and 53% of the
Corporate Training Managers are male and 47% are female. Below are the names of ten of the
Corporate Training Managers. You are being asked to rate one of them.
Michael Edwards
Nathan Adams
Karen Parker
Pat Hill
Sam Jenkins
John Stevens
Jessica Johnson
Nancy Smith
David Jones
Andrea Washington
Gender role incongruence
40
Please rate the following employee:
Name: Michael Edwards/Jessica Johnson
Birth Place: San Antonio, Texas
College Attended: Texas Tech University
Degree: BS in Human Resources
GPA: 3.8
Position at ABC: Corporate Training Manager
Employees managed: 5
Tenure at ABC: 5 years
Total Compensation: $100,000 per year, or $50,000 per year
Personal: Michael/Jessica is married and has two children. He/she enjoys playing
tennis with his/her family on the weekend. He/she is the
primary/secondary wage earner in the family. Together, he/she and
his/her wife/husband make $150,000 per year. The family lives in an
upper middle class neighborhood in the Dallas area.
Responsibilities and task requirements for the Corporate Training Manager are as follows:
Supervises a unit within Human Resources that provides skill training to employees who
seek to upgrade their positions within the company.
Helps inform employees about job advancement opportunities through individual
appointments and in-house workshops, and refers them to professionals who can aid them in
developing long-term career goals.
Needs to be a good communicator and knowledgeable about job and career planning.
Michael/Jessica has recently undergone the company-wide annual performance review and
received consistently high evaluations based on number of employees serviced, quality of
workshops offered, and satisfaction ratings from employees serviced. He/she has been
designated as a "stellar performer." His/her performance is in the top 5% of all employees at
his/her level.
Gender role incongruence
41
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-correlations
M
SD
1
2
3
5
1. Target sex
.50
.50
2. Target wage
earner status
.50
.50
.01
3. Participant sex
.39
.49
.01
.01
4. Perceived
overqualification
4.62
1.80
.20**
.31**
.21**
5. Surprise
4.74
2.10
.08
.15*
.07
6. Reward
recommendations
3.16
.99
.25**
.22**
-.01
.20**
Note: N = 306.
Two-tailed tests.
Target sex coded as 0 = female, 1 = male.
Target wage earner status coded as 0 = primary, 1 = secondary.
Participant sex was coded as 0 = female, 1 = male.
* p .05.
** p .01.
Gender role incongruence
42
Table 2A
ANOVA for Surprise
Variable
df
Sums of
Square
Mean
Square
F
p
η2
Intercept
1
6541.33
6541.33
1779.50
0.00
.797
Target sex
1
7.49
7.49
2.04
0.15
.001
Participant sex
1
9.47
9.47
2.58
0.11
.001
Target wage earner
status
1
18.67
18.67
5.08
0.03
.002
Target sex x
participant sex
1
1.88
1.88
.51
0.48
.000
Target sex x target
wage earner status
1
129.15
129.15
35.13
0.00
.016
Target wage earner
status x participant sex
1
17.63
17.63
4.80
0.03
.002
Target sex x target
wage earner status x
participant sex
1
22.70
22.70
6.18
0.01
.003
Error
298
1095.43
3.68
Total
306
8203.00
N = 306
Table 2B
ANCOVA for Perceived Overqualification Controlling for Surprise
Variable
df
Sums of
Square
Mean
Square
F
p
η2
Intercept
1
493.05
493.05
208.51
0.00
.066
Surprise
1
74.95
74.95
31.70
0.00
.010
Target sex
1
35.33
35.33
14.94
0.00
.005
Participant sex
1
29.75
29.75
12.58
0.00
.004
Target wage earner
status
1
59.87
59.87
25.32
0.00
.008
Target sex x
participant sex
1
8.93
8.93
3.78
0.05
.001
Target sex x target
wage earner status
1
10.14
10.14
4.29
0.04
.001
Target wage earner
status x participant sex
1
4.73
4.73
2.00
0.16
.001
Target sex x target
wage earner status x
participant sex
1
5.08
5.08
2.15
0.14
.001
Error
297
702.30
2.37
Total
306
7522.50
N = 306
Gender role incongruence
43
Table 2C
ANCOVA for Reward Recommendations Controlling for Surprise and Perceived
Overqualification
Variable
df
Sums of
Square
Mean
Square
F
p
η2
Intercept
1
141.29
141.29
167.22
0.00
.042
Surprise
1
3.08
3.08
3.65
0.06
.001
Perceived
overqualification
1
7.46
7.46
8.83
0.00
.002
Target sex
1
10.97
10.97
12.98
0.00
.003
Participant sex
1
1.19
1.19
1.41
.24
.000
Target wage earner
status
1
5.26
5.26
6.22
.01
.002
Target sex x
participant sex
1
.06
.06
.07
.79
.000
Target sex x target
wage earner status
1
.36
.36
.42
.52
.000
Target wage earner
status x participant sex
1
.04
.04
.05
.82
.000
Target sex x target
wage earner status x
participant sex
1
.12
.12
.14
.70
.000
Error
296
250.11
.85
Total
306
3355.00
N = 306
Gender role incongruence
44
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Confidence Intervals, and Sample Size by Dependent Measure
Note: a,b,c For each dependent variable, means with different subscripts are significantly different from one
another.
Reward recommendations
Primary wage earner
Secondary wage earner
Male
M
SD
95% CI
N
3.18b
.96
2.96 3.40
76
3.62c
1.04
3.39 3.85
77
Female
M
SD
95% CI
N
2.70a
.86
2.51 2.90
77
3.13b
.89
2.94 3.32
76
Perceived overqualification
Primary wage earner
Secondary wage earner
Male
M
SD
95% CI
N
4.43b
1.85
4.01 4.85
76
5.54c
1.49
5.21 5.87
77
Female
M
SD
95% CI
N
3.70a
1.70
3.32 4.08
77
4.82b
1.66
4.43 5.20
76
Surprise at wage earner status for:
Primary wage earner
Secondary wage earner
Male
M
SD
95% CI
N
3.87a
1.94
3.43 - 4.31
76
5.91c
1.86
5.49 - 6.33
77
Female
M
SD
95% CI
N
4.99b
2.07
4.52 - 5.45
77
4.16a
1.93
3.73 - 4.59
76
Gender role incongruence
45
Figure 1. Summary of results for: A (Surprise) and B (Perceived Overqualification).
ANOVA for Surprise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Primary wage earner Secondary wage earner
Wage Earner Status
Surprise
Woman
Man
Gender role incongruence
46
Figure 2. Three-way interaction of target sex, target wage earner status, and participant sex on
surprise.
... A number of papers focus specifically on the relationship between gender beliefs and positive and negative work-life interference. Gender beliefs, which can differ from country to country, not only determine employees' perceptions of work-life-balance (Lyness, 2014), but they can also relate to how primary female earners who are successful in traditional male domains are penalized (Triana, 2011). Moreover, at a micro level, the husband's gender ideology can moderate the relationship between family-to-work conflict and marital satisfaction for both spouses (Minnotte et al. 2013). ...
... As the literature review has highlighted, the genders are affected differently due to their different positions in the labor market, organizational positions and family responsibilities (which still appear to be significantly unbalanced). Since family responsibilities are still mainly considered the domain of women, as primary caretakers (Triana, 2011), studies also show that women are more affected by spillover effects (Stevens et al. 2006;Offer, 2014;Keene, 2005). Moreover, it is highly interesting that similar spillover effects can affect men and women differently. ...
Article
Full-text available
In recent decades, spillover has become a highly influential concept which has led to the initiation of new theoretical and methodological approaches that are designed to understand how people attempt to reconcile their work and private lives. The very notion of spillover presupposes that these spheres are connected, since the people who move between them bring certain ‘less visible’ content with them such as cognitive or affective mental constructs, skills, behaviors, etc. This paper attempts to create fresh insight into the different areas, themes and methodologies related to how spillover has been addressed over the last ten years. Four main categories are discussed based on the 76 academic articles that were selected: (1) general spillover research, (2) job flexibility and spillover, (3) individual coping strategies, and (4) the spillover effect on the different genders. The final section of the paper provides a tentative synthesis of the main conclusions and findings from the examined papers.
... To build the femininity score, we first identified stereotypically feminine traits from the literature with matching information collected in the UK Biobank. The targeted information included family values, caring traits, and neuroticism, which have a positive correlation with stereotypical femininity, and high education achievement, career advancement, and risk-taking which have a negative correlation 2,[36][37][38][39][40] . In addition, self-reporting of depression is associated with femininity and is less common in men 41 , and femininity has been associated with greater self-disclosure 42 www.nature.com/scientificreports/ ...
Article
Full-text available
Gender captures social components beyond biological sex and can add valuable insight to health studies in populations. However, assessment of gender typically relies on questionnaires which may not be available. The aim of this study is to construct a gender metric using available variables in the UK Biobank and to apply it to the study of angina diagnosis. Proxy variables for femininity characteristics were identified in the UK Biobank and regressed on sex to construct a composite femininity score (FS) validated using tenfold cross-validation. The FS was assessed as a predictor of angina diagnosis before incident myocardial infarction (MI) events. The FS was derived for 315,937 UK Biobank participants. In 3059 individuals with no history of MI at study entry who had an incident MI event, the FS was a significant predictor of angina diagnosis prior to MI (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10–1.39, P < 0.001) with a significant sex-by-FS interaction effect (P = 0.003). The FS was positively associated with angina diagnosis prior to MI in men (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19–1.57, P < 0.001), but not in women. We have provided a new tool to conduct gender-sensitive analyses in observational studies, and applied it to study of angina diagnosis prior to MI.
... Recent research in the area has found that men and women's allocation of time to paid and unpaid work has become more similar over time (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010;Desmarais & Alksnis, 2005). While the amount of time spent in work, housework and childcare may no longer conform to the traditional gendered roles of male breadwinner and female homemaker (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010;Greenhaus & Singh, 2004) gender roles expectations may not have shifted as dramatically (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2003;Coltrane, 2000;del Carmen Trianna, 2011;Martinengo, Jacob, & Hill, 2010;Ridgeway, 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
Using data from a national survey of Canadian employees, a model linking family-role overload, work-role overload, total-role overload, and perceived stress was tested on a sample of 4,947 women and 3,923 men. All members of the sample were married/living with a partner, worked full-time (at least 37.5 hr per week), and had children under 18 living at home. The results verified our model as work-role overload and family-role overload were significant predictors of total-role overload and family-role overload, work-role overload, and total-role overload were significant predictors of perceived stress, regardless of employee gender. The results also showed that the paths between family-role overload and total-role overload and between family-role overload and perceived stress were significantly stronger for women than men. No gender differences were observed in any of the other paths in our model. At time of writing, this is the only empirical study to include work, family, and total-role overload in one model, and the first to examine the relationship between gender and role overload across the work-family interface. As such, the study advances our theoretical understanding of role overload in a multi-role environment. The results also suggest that researchers and practitioners would benefit from the consideration of domain-specific and total-role overload in studies of employee stress.
Article
Stress-related disorders (SRD) disproportionately affect women. Cortisol blunting, a failure to demonstrate a typical rise and fall of cortisol in response to stress, is associated with SRDs and has been found to be more pronounced among women. Cortisol blunting relates to both sex as a biological variable (SABV; e.g., estrogens and their fluctuations, impact on neural circuits) and gender as a psychosocial variable (GAPSV; e.g., discrimination, harassment, gender roles). I suggest a theoretical model linking experience, sex- and gender-related factors, and neuroendocrine substrates of SRD to the heightened risk among women. The model thus bridges multiple gaps in the literature to create a synergistic conceptual framework with which to understand the stress of being a woman. Utilizing such a framework in research may allow identifying targeted, sex-and gender-dependent risk factors, informing psychological treatment, medical advice, educational and community programming, and policy. DATA AVAILABILITY: All references are cited as required, no other data is reported.
Article
Although the consequences of leader humor on subordinates have been well documented, the important issues of how and when leader humor affects employees’ attitudes or behaviors beyond the workplace have received limited attention. We integrate the humor literature with spillover-crossover theory to address the gap regarding the implications of leader humor in the nonwork domain. By performing an experiment and two field studies involving employee-spouse dyads, we consistently find 1) a positive association between leader humor and followers’ job satisfaction, 2) a spillover effect of followers’ job satisfaction on subordinates’ work-to-family enrichment (WFE) and a crossover effect of subordinates’ WFE on their spouses’ marital satisfaction, 3) serial mediating effects of followers’ job satisfaction and WFE on the leader humor-spouses’ marital satisfaction link, and 4) a stronger positive indirect effect of leader humor on spouse’ marital satisfaction via followers’ job satisfaction and WFE when followers’ perceived organizational interpersonal harmony is low. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings and suggest practical implications for developing leader humor to enhance employee well-being.
Article
Both perceived and objective measures of employee overqualification can impact job attitudes, various workplace behaviors, and work relationships. Utilizing motivation and capability-based theoretical approaches, this review summarizes research regarding the antecedents (demographic influences, personality traits, relational influences, job characteristics) and outcomes (individual health and well-being, turnover intentions and turnover, job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, interpersonal relationships, innovative behaviors, counterproductive work behaviors, and career success) of overqualification. In addition, we review work done to date regarding the moderators and mediators of these relationships. Finally, we offer future directions for research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Pscyhology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 8 is January 21, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
Article
Maintaining a healthy marriage may be challenging for military couples as they attempt to balance the demands of work and family; for dual-military couples, this can be even more challenging. Using data from the Millennium Cohort Family Study, we examined whether military stress experiences negatively impact marital quality through the mediation of work–family conflict. Spouse gender and dual-military status were included as moderators. Spouses reported on marital quality, work–family conflict, military stress experiences, and personal military experience. Spouse and service member demographics were also included. Results demonstrated that experiencing more military stress experiences was related to lower marital quality, which was mediated by work–family conflict. Additionally, female dual spouses reported lower marital quality than male dual spouses and civilian spouses. Findings from this study highlight the importance of providing support to military spouses for stressful military events and potentially tailoring support services for female dual spouses to improve marital quality.
Article
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine potential consequences of helping behaviors on leader and follower relationship satisfaction and transformational leadership (TFL) ratings. It is argued that follower helping behaviors can violate leaders’ and followers’ expectations of each other, and especially disadvantage male leaders because of gender-role stereotypes. Design/methodology/approach – Two studies were conducted. In Study 1, data were collected from 61 dyads (25 male and 34 female supervisors, 23 male and 38 female subordinates, two participants did not disclose their gender; Mage=35.56 years, SD=10.41). In Study 2, data were collected from 125 participants (66 female and 58 male subordinates, 22 female and 25 male supervisors; 79 respondents did not disclose their gender; Mage=39.21 years, SD=11.25). Findings – Helping behaviors were positively associated with relationship satisfaction suggesting that leaders were amenable to receiving help from followers (Study 1). However, follower helping behaviors were negatively related to TFL ratings for male but not female leaders (Study 2). Research limitations/implications – While leaders may be amenable to increased follower involvement in leadership, future research is needed to investigate followers’ openness to, and intentions behind increasing their involvement in leadership, as well as strategies for leaders to mitigate unintended consequences. Practical implications – For the sake of their TFL ratings, leaders should minimize any direct benefit from follower helping behaviors, and emphasize how follower helping behaviors aid follower development and/or benefit the organization. Originality/value – The findings illustrate the dual-nature of follower helping behaviors: they have the potential to enhance leader relationship satisfaction, and also compromise perceptions of TFL.
Article
Temporary organizations such as projects are known to differ in various respects from permanent ones and have been argued to be more gender-neutral. Inspired by gender research in permanent organizations, we show that (in)congruency between gender and project roles evokes similar mechanisms in both permanent and temporary systems. Using the example of cooperative behavior, operationalized as project citizenship behavior (PCB), we examine how temporary organizations reward such behaviour. A cross-sectional study was conducted, with 241 project managers and workers participating. The results of seven structural equation models reveal that though the enactment of PCB does not vary by gender, the relationship of PCB with its outcomes does: men and women were clearly rewarded differently depending on the gender congruency of their project roles.
Article
This study draws on distributive justice, human capital, and stigmatization theories to hypothesize relationships between relative pay gap and patterns of job mobility. Our study also expands the criterion space of job mobility by contrasting different job destinations when information technology (IT) professionals make job moves. We examine three job moves: (a) turnover to another IT job in a different firm, (b) turnaway-within to a non-IT job, and (c) turnaway-between to a different firm and a non-IT job. We analyze work histories spanning 28 years for 359 IT professionals drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. We report three major findings. First, as hypothesized, larger relative pay gaps significantly increase the likelihood of job mobility. Second, IT males and IT females have different job mobility patterns. IT males are more likely to turn over than turn away-between when faced with a relative pay gap. Further, and contrary to predictions from human capital theory, IT males are more likely to turn away-within than turn over. This surprising finding suggests that the ubiquitous use of IT in other business functions may have increased the value of IT skills for non-IT jobs and reduced the friction of moving from IT to other non-IT positions. Third, and consistent with stigmatization arguments, IT females are more likely to turn away from IT than to turn over when faced with a relative pay gap. In fact, to reduce relative pay gaps, IT females tend to take on lower-status jobs that pay less than their IT jobs. We conclude this study with important theoretical, practical, and policy implications.
Article
Full-text available
A role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders proposes that perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to 2 forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman. One consequence is that attitudes are less positive toward female than male leaders and potential leaders. Other consequences are that it is more difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles. Evidence from varied research paradigms substantiates that these consequences occur, especially in situations that heighten perceptions of incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles.
Book
This edited book brings together in one volume a review of the scholarly work on discrimination based on race, age, sexual orientation, gender, physical appearance, disability, and personality. The focus is on prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination in the workplace. The book is organized into three parts: (I) The fundamental causes of discrimination; (II) the research on discrimination against specific groups (e.g., sex, race, disability); and (III) the implications of research and theory for policy and practice aimed at reducing discrimination. The authors explore the multilevel antecedents and potential bases for a general model of discrimination in the workplace. The review focuses on the groups that have received the most attention and give little attention to other ethnic and racial groups, such as Jews, Hispanics, and Native Americans.
Article
As married women have become increasingly likely to work in recent decades, their contribution to family earnings has grown as well - indeed, in 20 to 25 percent of dual-earner couples, wives earn more than their husbands; these trends may have affected family decisionmaking, giving some women more input into family financial and career decisions.