Gender Stereotypes and the Ontogenetically Adaptive Role of Feedback Preferences

Gender Stereotypes and the Ontogenetically Adaptive Role of Feedback Preferences

Introduction & Theory

It is acknowledged that feedback is an integral part of the learning process and that different types of feedback are suited to different types of situations (e.g., Spector, 2000). The current research examines how gender stereotypes affect working adults' feedback preferences in the context of training. Based on Social Role theory (Eagly, 1987), this paper theorizes why these preferences are ontogenetically adaptive in the social sense of the word. Social Role theory (Eagly, 1987) predicts that male participants will prefer feedback which is consistent with male stereotypes and that female participants will prefer feedback which is consistent with female stereotypes. I hypothesize that female participants will report feeling most satisfied when they receive gender-consistent feedback regarding their leadership style (democratic and interpersonally-oriented) and that male participants will report feeling most satisfied when they receive gender-consistent feedback regarding their leadership style (autocratic and task-oriented). Preferring feedback that is consistent with gender stereotypes is more socially acceptable than preferring feedback that is inconsistent with gender stereotypes. By preferring feedback that is consistent with gender stereotypes, one is accepting social norms and socially prescribed roles. Accepting these creates smooth social interaction over the course of one's work life, which is socially adaptive yet inhibits social progress. Social barriers such as those which gender stereotypes exemplify may affect the resilience of the metaphorical glass ceiling. Gender stereotypes may neutralize the enhancing effects that special training opportunities were intended to create.

Background: Feedback in Training

Feedback is defined as information given to a person about his or her performance. Within the setting of an organization, employees typically receive feedback during training or through a performance appraisal. The scope of this paper will be limited to feedback in training.

The use of feedback is one of the earliest known variables to support learning in the literature. The classical study that started the research was provided by E.L. Thorndike (1927), who has two groups of subjects (both blind-folded) draw hundreds of lines measuring three, four, five, or six inches over a period of several days. The members of one group were given feedback that indicated whether their response was right or wrong within the established criterion of a quarter-inch of the target area. The members of the second groups were not given any feedback. These data indicate that the group that received the knowledge of results improved considerably in its performance, whereas the other group continued making errors. A later study repeated this experiment but included a group that received feedback stating the degree of error (Trowbridge & Cason, 1932). The subjects in this group gained even greater accuracy than the group that was just told that the answers were right or wrong. These are two examples of the numerous studies that have demonstrated the importance of feedback. Researchers suggest that the reason knowledge of results improves performance can be attributed to motivational and informational functions.

A study examining training practices in a safety program addressed the issue of feedback (Komaki, Heinzmann, & Lawson, 1980). Komaki and her colleagues specifically asked whether training alone was sufficient or if it was necessary to provide feedback to maintain performance on the job. This study was conducted in the vehicle maintenance division of a large city's public work department. The researchers selected a department that had high accident rates. The researchers conducted a needs assessment, including examination of safety logs to determine safety incidents that had occurred. With the help of supervisors and workers, they designed procedures to eliminate accident problems. Thus, if it was found that an accident occurred because a worker had fallen off a jack stand, an item was included in the training program that related to the proper use of jacks and jack stands. These training items also formed the basis for a system for observing the effects of performance. The training program involved a number of procedures, including slides depicting posed scenes of unsafe behavior followed by discussions of safety procedures. For example, one slide depicted an employee working under a vehicle without appropriate eye-protection devices. Komaki found that preceding training, employees were performing safely one- to two-thirds of the time. After training, performance improved by about 9%. Komaki then added another condition, including feedback on a daily basis in the form a graph showing the safety level of the group and the safety goals that the group was trying to achieve. This extra condition resulted in an improvement of 26% over the pre-training phase and 16% over the training-only phase. Komaki makes the point that training alone is not sufficient to improve and maintain performance. Rather, training plus feedback provides the most effective strategy.

Most training analysts have placed considerable emphasis on the importance of knowledge of result in the learning process. Unfortunately, many of those who emphasize its importance simply assume that any form of feedback with any sort of timing will accomplish the purpose. Yet, Schmidt and Wulf (1997) found that continuous feedback during the acquisition of a motor skill actually interfered with rather than supported the rate of learning. Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) have developed a model describing some important aspects of the processes involved in perceptions of feedback and have summarized some of the conclusions that can be gleaned from the literature:

There is evidence that feedback must be accurately perceived by the recipient to have an effect, and yet it appears that it is often misperceived. This seems to be particularly true of negative feedback.

Results indicate that the accuracy of feedback may be affected by the credibility of the source of the feedback. This implies that individuals who wish to use feedback need to work to develop credibility based on their expertise or on the basis of a trust relationship.

High-frequency levels of feedback are not always better as it may connote a loss of personal control. It may also lead recipients to excessively rely on feedback and not develop their own capability at judging their performance.

The individual needs of the person should be taken into account when choosing feedback. Thus, individuals who are high performers with growth-oriented needs require feedback that emphasizes competency and does not take away from personal initiative. However, poor performers need to be monitored carefully and given very specific feedback.

Feedback should be built into a given training program as appropriate so that the trainee can tell if he or she is learning the correct material. Training that is intended to impart information or knowledge can build in feedback in two ways. First, trainees can be tested on the information with an examination. Second, trainees can ask questions of the trainer. Both of these procedures are a regular part of most college or university courses. Training that is intended to teach a skill should allow the trainees to practice and get feedback as they learn. For example, training in driving an automobile should allow the person to drive with an instructor who will give feedback. Feedback is also built into the task itself. Trainees can tell if they are staying on the road and if they are driving straight.

Gender Issues in Training

Although the feedback literature appears comprehensive, no research examines the relationship between gender stereotypes and feedback in training. In order to understand how gender stereotypes impact working adults' feedback preferences in training, it is first necessary to explore gender issues in the workplace. We will now review literature examining how recent trends of organizational downsizing have affected women's access to training. We will then review a specific body of literature discussing the career barriers that women face. Although this paper only examines adults' feedback preferences, when addressed this subject, the literature couples women with minority groups. For the sake of accuracy then, both women and minority groups will be discussed.

Concern for Maximizing Individual Worker Potential

Recent years have witnessed organizational downsizing. One implication of the decreasing size of the workforce is that it will become increasingly necessary to maximize the potential of the individual worker. This means that the future of work organizations will become more dependent on their ability to effectively use many members of society, often by providing training and giving workers more opportunities for self-directed learning experiences. Despite evidence that indicates the importance of work in the lives of most individuals, a number of difficult realties have existed within the world of work. Many researchers conclude that a contributing factor that has resulted in lost opportunities for qualified individuals is the cycle of discrimination plaguing minorities, women, and older workers. As a result of these lost opportunities, increased litigation has focused on organizational decisions involving training opportunities and their lack of availability to members of minority groups, women, older workers and, more recently, handicapped workers. The HPPS (Bassi & Van Buren, 1998) found that women, minorities, and younger and older people (people less than 25 or more than 55 years old) were less likely to receive training than men, whites, and prime age workers. The courts are eliminating training programs that discriminate in providing equal opportunity for promotional and job opportunities. This is especially the case when completing these training opportunities is required for advancement. Much of the tensions here come about because individuals view training as instrumental in helping them achieve advanced opportunities, and thus they are concerned when they feel programs are not made available. Some believe that as organizations have a greater need for workers, these difficulties will diminish; others are not as confident.

The Glass Ceiling Effect

Barriers to advancement and increased compensation for women and minorities in the workplace have been described as the "glass ceiling effect" (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). The glass ceiling refers to any artificial barrier that limits promotion and developmental opportunities or crowds women and minorities into staff positions and managerial positions that are removed from the essential core of the business. The Commission cites that whereas over 50% of all masters degree are awarded to women, over 97% of top-level executives in Fortune 1000 companies remain white male.

The scope of these difficulties was first detailed in a U.S. Department of Labor report that examined the employment and promotion practices of nine Fortune 500 firms (Sugawara, 1991). The study found that this seemingly invisible barrier often blocks women and minorities from advancement into management. In addition, the study found that barriers exist at a much lower level of management than originally thought. The extent to which this type of problem affects training programs under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) discriminates against women and blacks in the type of training opportunities made available. In these cases, minorities and women are more likely to be provided with training consistent with lower placement levels. Given these developments, court cases concerning opportunities for promotions have become more frequent. One target of litigation are programs that determine who is given the opportunity to attend a training program so they can be selected for promotion to a managerial job. Those personnel decisions are subject to the same laws as personnel decisions for entry into the job market.

A recent audit by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance concluded that over one-half of the companies that do business with the government have problems relevant to tracking affirmative action and developmental actions within their organization. In a recent court case with Washington, Texas, Inc., Texaco agreed to pay $3.1 million to 186 female employees who received less than their male counterparts in the "largest glass ceiling settlement" ever reached. In the settlement, Texaco agreed to expand opportunities for women and to analyze its pay scales (Galvin, 1999).

In addition, recently Lyness and Thompson (1997) examined the glass ceiling effect at the top-executive level. They looked at women who had broken through the glass ceiling at the middle-management level and were now in the ranks of the upper management. They compared career and work experiences of a matched sample of women and men in the financial services field. They found that while compensation levels were comparable, women in the sample had less authority, received fewer stock options, and had less international mobility than men do. They suggest that the result imply a more subtle, second higher level glass ceiling.

While there are some researchers who challenge how widespread the glass ceiling effect is (e.g., Furchtgott-Roth & Stolba, 1999), it is clear that the effect is worth more study and enhanced monitoring in organizations (Heneman, Waldeck, & Cushine, 1997). For example, the 1998 Census of Women Board of Directors of Fortune 500 companies demonstrates that women are gaining some ground but still hold only 11.1% of board seats (compared with 8.3% in 1993) and represents just 5.3% of corporate officers (Catalyst, 1998). Minority women are even less well represented compared with white women, holding less than 1.4% of total board seats.

Arvey, Azevedo, Ostgaard, and Raghhuram (1997) contend that a possible cause of glass ceiling is that the white male culture at top levels of organizations are indifferent or even hostile to the advancement of women and minorities. Even organizations that actively recruit and promote women and minorities fail to make the work culture hospitable to them (Sharpe, 1994). The U.S. Department of Labor contends that the major cause of the glass ceiling effect is that organizations do not hold managers and executives accountable to issues of fair employment practices. In addition, there are closed internal markets in organizations where women and minorities are less likely to be made aware of job openings, and there is a lack of training and development opportunities for improving qualifications and chances for promotion (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995).

One suggestion for avoiding the glass ceiling effect is to fast track women and minority employees by giving special training and development opportunities, providing mentors, and giving assignments to pivotal jobs that provide core experience and boost retention of women and minorities (Arvey et al., 197). As an example, Xerox has studied its managerial positions, identified pivotal jobs, and set goals for putting women and minorities in those positions and developing their talents (Sessa, 1992). Proctor & Gamble has an orientation program called "On-Boarding" specifically for women entering the organization, which is designed to develop an awareness of issues of working within the existing organizational culture (Cox, 1993). Workshops have also been created for supervisors and managers to better understand how perceptions of events can impact important managerial decisions such as promotions and career progressions of minority group members (Alderfer, 1992). To encourage organizations to take these types of proactive steps, the U.S. Department of Labor offers the Exemplar Voluntary Efforts (EVE) Awards for federal contractors who are working to shatter the glass ceiling.

Social Role Theory

Based on this research, it is likely to assume that organizations are aware of both the glass ceiling effect and related issues. It is also likely to assume that, as awareness has increased more women and minority groups have been placed on the fast track and, in turn, are receiving special training opportunities. However, acknowledging and taking action to combat workplace discrimination may not be enough to break the glass ceiling. Logically speaking, other barriers such as gender stereotypes exist and these barriers may affect the resilience of the metaphorical glass ceiling. In other words, these social barriers may neutralize the enhancing effects that special training opportunities were intended to create.

A gamut of sociocultural factors contributes to the durability of gender stereotypes including but not limited to the media and popular culture. Alice Eagly's (1987) social role theory states that although the perception of sex differences may be based on actual differences, it is magnified by the unequal social roles occupied by men and women. The process involves three steps. First, through a combination of biological and social factors, a division of labor between sexes emerged over time - at home and in the work setting. Men are more likely to work in construction or business; women are more likely to care for children and take lower-status jobs. Second, since people behave in ways that fit the role they play, men are more likely than women are to wield physical, social, and economic power. Third, these behavior differences provide a continuing basis for social perception, leading us to perceive men as dominant "by nature" and women as domestic "by nature," when in fact the differences reflect the role they inhabit. In short, sex stereotypes are shaped by - and often confused with - the unequal distribution of men and women into different social roles. According to this theory, perceived differences between men and women arise from gender rather than from social roles. When the roles are reversed, the gender stereotypes disappear (Eagly & Wood, 1982).

Gender and Leadership Style

In the context of training, this literature predicts that gender stereotypes will affect people's preferences for feedback. Specifically, Social Role theory (Eagly, 1987) predicts that male participants will prefer feedback which is consistent with male stereotypes and that female participants will prefer feedback which is consistent with female stereotypes. The content of these stereotypes is domain-specific.

Task and interpersonal styles in leadership research are relevant to gender because of the stereotypes people have about sex differences in these aspects of behavior (Ashmore, Del Boca, & Wohlers, 1986; Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Men are believed to be more self-assertive and motivated to master their environment (e.g., more aggressive, independent, self-sufficient, forceful, dominant). In contrast, women are believed to be more selfless and concerned with others (e.g., more kind, helpful, understanding, warm, sympathetic, aware of others' feelings). In research on gender, these two orientations have been labeled masculine and feminine, instrumental and expressive, and agentic and communal. Although the task and interpersonal dimensions studied in leadership research are not as broad as these very general tendencies examined in gender stereotype research, the ideas are quite similar. Therefore, leadership research provides an excellent opportunity to determine whether the behavior of leaders is gender stereotypic.

The only other aspect of leadership style studied frequently enough to allow us to represent it in this study is the extent to which leaders (a) behave democratically and allow subordinates to participate in decision making, or (b) behave autocratically and discourage subordinates from participating in decision-making. The dimension of democratic vs. autocratic leadership (or participative vs. directive leadership) follows from early experimental studies of leadership style (e.g., Lewin & Lippitt, 1938) and has been developed since that time by a number of researchers (e.g., Likert, 1961; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Although democratic vs. autocratic style is a different (and narrower) aspect of leader behavior than task-oriented and interpersonally oriented styles (see Bass, 1981), the democratic-autocratic dimension also relates to gender stereotypes, because one component of the agentic or instrumental aspect of these stereotypes is that men are relatively dominant and controlling (i.e., more autocratic and directive than women).

Hypotheses

Based on this literature, we hypothesize that female participants will report feeling most satisfied when they receive gender-consistent feedback regarding their leadership style (democratic and interpersonally-oriented) and that male participants will report feeling most satisfied when they receive gender-consistent feedback regarding their leadership style (autocratic and task-oriented). This hypothesis tests what kind of feedback participants prefer to receive.

Participants preferring gender-inconsistent feedback will receive lower ratings regarding leadership quality from their peers. Participants preferring gender-consistent feedback will receive higher ratings regarding leadership quality from their peers. This hypothesis tests how preferring gender-consistent stereotypes maintains social norms and is therefore socially adaptive.

In order to test whether recent attempts to break the glass ceiling are effective in achieving their purpose, the current research examines how gender stereotypes affect working adults' feedback preferences within the context of training. It is further proposed that working adults will prefer stereotype-consistent feedback because it is socially adaptive to do so, given prescribed social roles.

Methods

Participants, Setting, and Design

This study will be a 2 (gender: male or female) x 2 (feedback: gender-consistent or gender-inconsistent) between-subjects factorial design (Table 1).

Table 1. Proposed Research Design

Feedback:

Gender consistent

Gender-inconsistent

Male

=100

Female n=100

The sample will consist of 400 undergraduate students from George Mason University, George Washington University, and University of Maryland who are interested in becoming resident advisors (RA's). In preparation for their assignment, university housing policy requires that RA teams attend a 10-week training class, a retreat, and frequent staff meetings (at least once per week). RA teams are responsible for developing programs (e.g., study skills and diversity training), coordinating social and recreational activities, providing limited guidance services (on academic, personal, and social matters and making referrals when appropriate), and investigating misconduct (e.g., alcohol violations) and conflict (e.g., housing disputes). Although some tasks are performed independently, the RA team in conjunction determines allocation of human resources with their Resident Director, and larger tasks are performed collectively (more than 50% of RA's total work time is spent in team tasks). RA's are typically juniors and seniors who undertake this task as their principal job for at least a year. They devote at least 20 hours per week to this job.

Procedures

Informed consent will be obtained in the form of written release by all participants prior to the study.

Before the training course, RA's will complete several questionnaires assessing demographics and leadership attitudes. At the beginning and end of this training course, RA's will complete the LBDQ in relation to themselves and their peers in the training program.