How true is the overall analysis of women’s motivation for work? Crowley, Levitan, and Quinn tested the validity of some commonly held beliefs regarding women in a large national survey. Their findings indicated no support for the belief that women work only for economic rewards nor that they are less concerned than men that their work be self-fulfilling. Furthermore, the idea that women are more content with dull and intellectually undemanding jobs also proved to be unfounded. The assumptions typically made about the motivations of women in the work force have been contradicted by data. Women’s images of appropriate behavior for themselves have come to include employment as an important component. This unfortunately does not stop more traditional assumptions from influencing the way women are treated when they seek employment.
Sex stereotypes are the basis for access discrimination, both because they characterize women as less equipped to handle effectively nontraditional occupational demands and because they specify that such jobs are inappropriate for women. Some examples of the consequences follow.
Selection. Sex discrimination has been repeatedly demonstrated in employee selection processes. Although a few studies found no differences in how men and women applying for masculine jobs were treated (e.g., Terborg and Ilgen), the majority do indicate a tendency toward sex discrimination. When rating predetermined resumes for suitability to a managerial position, males were found to be judged preferable to comparable females by both male college students and professional interviewers (Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback). In another investigation, the lowest acceptance rates and poorest evaluations for managerial positions were of female applicants (Rosen and Jerdee). Shaw demonstrated that sex bias prevailed among college recruiters whether the applicant’s resume indicated an MBA degree or a degree in mathematics. This) tendency to discriminate against women in hiring decisions has been found to be as true of| female subjects as of male subjects (Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra).
In many of the studies documenting discrimination in hiring decisions, perceived characteristics of the applicants also have been recorded. A look at these data makes clear the fact that sex stereotypes were used in formulating conception of applicants. Dipboye and others, for instance, found female applicants to be less experienced, decisive, informed, competitive, motivated, logical, and assertive than male applicants. Female applicants also were rated as friendlier, warmer, and more emotional than males. Although such data do not provide conclusive evidence that this type of discrimination is mediated by sex stereotypes, it strongly supports this idea.
Role norms are violated by the inconsistency between the gender of a female job applicant and the nature of the job in question. One might thus expect that the more feminine a potential female employee is perceived to be or the more nontraditional the job is, the more inappropriate her work interests would appear, and the more discrimination she would suffer. There is, in fact, some indication that sex bias in selection is more likely when traditionally masculine jobs rather than neutral or traditionally feminine jobs are in question (Cash, Gillen, and Burns). Results of several studies have additionally indicated that more attractive women (also, according to Bern, considered to be more feminine women) are at a disadvantage when they seek nontraditional positions. In one study, professional personnel consultants judged attractive women to be less qualified than unattractive ones with identical qualifications for low status masculine jobs (Cash and others). In another investigation, college students recommended that attractive women be hired less often for managerial positions but more often for clerical positions than their unattractive counterparts (Heilman and Saruwatari, in press). When the degree of inappropriateness of fit between the woman and a job is exaggerated, either by the definitively masculine nature of the job or the femininity of the woman, the likelihood of sex bias appears to increase.
Starting salary. Levitan, Quinn, and Staines reported that 95% of the American working women sampled at that time earned an average of $3,458 less than men with the same educational backgrounds and qualifications. This may be because men and women have very different jobs. There are instances, however, when a woman is offered a lower starting salary than a man for the identical position. This type of differential treatment on the basis of sex is yet another aspect of access discrimination.
Using an in-basket exercise, Terborg and Ilgen asked subjects to indicate a starting salary for each of four job applicants. The female applicant was given a significantly lower starting salary than a male counterpart. The authors suggest that this type of access discrimination can influence the applicant, even if she has received a job offer, to decide against taking the job. Thus it can be a subtle but nonetheless effective way of discouraging entry.
As Terborg has pointed out, some (e.g., Treiman and Terrell) have argued that lower salaries for women are justifiable for economic reasons. Generally the argument is that hiring women is not cost efficient; they yield fewer long-range payoffs but cost no less to train than men. This assertion is not borne out by facts. Although this is true under some circumstances, in the aggregate women have not been found to take more sick leave and/or terminate employment sooner than men (Hoffman and Nye). Given recent social trends, this is apt to be even less true in the future than it is now.
Impediments to women’s access into nontraditional careers often are substantial. They derive from the clearly delineated sex stereotypes that not only prejudice our views of women’s capabilities but also influence our beliefs about what women should be and most desire to be.
*169/187/5*
