Gender and Perceived and Objective Measures of Success

¶ … individual's gender is an important factor that influences their career, success, and even their subjective evaluation of their career (e.g., Orser & Leck, 2010; Schneidhofer, Schiffinger, & Mayrhofer, 2010). A number of different models have been proposed to explain how a person's gender influences one's vocational aspirations, career choice, and perceived success (see Schoon & Eccles, 2014). These influences affect both objective and subjective measures of career success/attainment.

For example, Orser and Leck (2010) examined how gender moderates objective career factors as well as subjective career factors. Data was collected from a large sample of male and female managers, executives, and CEOs (N = 521). Two objective dependent measures of success were collected: 1) total compensation (annual salary, bonuses, and other financial remuneration) and 2) ascendancy (defined by the number of reporting levels below the participant). One subjective dependent measure was also collected (personal opinion regarding how successful the participant believed that they were). Several independent predictor variables were utilized (e.g., education, family responsibilities, partnered or not, eldercare responsibilities, experience, organizational size, and gender) in a stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine the influence of the predictor variables on the outcome variables. Even controlling for the effects of all of the other predictor variables gender moderated the influence of one's experiences on all three dependent variables. The researchers determined that one's gender is a moderator variable that influences objective and subjective measures of career success; however, there may be a discriminatory influence of gender as well.

Herrbach and Mignonac (2012) analyzed responses from 300 female employees at a major telecommunications company in France. Using a hierarchal regression model the researchers investigated the relationship between gender and other demographic variables on the subjective feelings of success of the participants as well as several career anchors (a person's major career drive). The level of the participants' perceived gender discrimination was negatively associated to their subjective feelings of success; however, moderated this relationship such that one's managerial drives or technical level sought increased perceived impact of discrimination, whereas individuals driven by autonomy and security reported lower feelings of gender discrimination.

One limiting factor of the research is that gender is treated as a dichotomous variable (e.g., male/female). Schneidhofer, Schiffinger and Mayrhofer (2010) looked the effect of at gender role type (GRT) on an individual's income level. GRT was comprised of four levels (masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated) thus allowing for more explanatory power. Longitudinal models for two cohorts of business school graduates (1990, 2000 groups) were assessed and it was assumed that gender and GRT types effects change over time so several main effects and interactions were investigated. Findings indicated that for the 1990 cohort masculine men and androgynous women had the highest income, whereas a feminine GRT minimized income for both women and men. For the 2000 cohort masculine women and androgynous men had the highest respective income, whereas being feminine still penalized men and indifferent women (not feminine) were also heavily penalized and earned the least income. The researchers concluded that both biological gender and gender type are moderators of an objective measure of career success (one's income). In a reevaluation of the data to determine if these findings suggest that the gap between men and women's income was narrowing over time Schneidhofer, Schiffinger and Mayrhofer (2011) found that individuals with undifferentiated or female GRT's earned less than masculine and androgynous GRT's in both cohorts, income for androgynous men was higher for the 2000 cohort compared to masculine men, but masculine women did not increase in income compared to androgynous women from 1990 to 2000. Thus, the income gap between men and women was widening, not narrowing.