This paper examines how gender stereotypes influence working adults' feedback preferences within organizational training contexts. Drawing on Alice Eagly's Social Role Theory (1987), the study hypothesizes that female participants will report greater satisfaction with democratic, interpersonally-oriented feedback, while male participants will prefer autocratic, task-oriented feedback — each consistent with their prescribed gender roles. The paper reviews foundational feedback research, the glass ceiling effect, and gender issues in workplace training before proposing a between-subjects experimental design using resident advisor trainees. Projected results suggest that gender-consistent feedback preferences are socially adaptive, reinforcing prescribed social roles and maintaining existing norms — potentially neutralizing the very training interventions designed to break down workplace barriers.
The paper exemplifies theory-driven hypothesis construction: it does not simply assert that gender affects feedback preferences, but traces a logical chain from Social Role Theory through leadership style research to specific, testable predictions. This deductive structure — theory → mechanism → prediction → design → projected outcome — is a model approach for experimental social science writing.
The paper opens with a theoretical introduction that states the core claim, then builds a two-part literature review covering feedback research and gender issues separately before merging them through Social Role Theory. A methods section specifies the 2×2 factorial design, followed by a projected results section and a brief interpretive discussion. This funnel structure — moving from broad background to specific design — is typical of APA-style research proposals in organizational psychology.
It is widely 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 predicts that male participants will prefer feedback consistent with male stereotypes and that female participants will prefer feedback consistent with female stereotypes.
Specifically, it is hypothesized 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 them. By preferring stereotype-consistent feedback, one is accepting social norms and prescribed social roles. Accepting these norms creates smoother social interaction over the course of one's work life — an outcome that is socially adaptive yet inhibits broader social progress. Social barriers such as those that gender stereotypes exemplify may affect the resilience of the metaphorical glass ceiling, potentially neutralizing the enhancing effects that special training opportunities were intended to create.
Feedback is defined as information given to a person about his or her performance. Within an organizational setting, employees typically receive feedback during training or through a performance appraisal. The scope of this paper is limited to feedback in the training context.
The use of feedback is one of the earliest known variables to support learning in the literature. The foundational study was conducted by E. L. Thorndike (1927), who had two groups of blindfolded subjects draw hundreds of lines measuring three, four, five, or six inches over a period of several days. Members of one group received feedback indicating whether their responses were right or wrong within a criterion of one quarter-inch of the target length. Members of the second group received no feedback. The data showed that the group receiving knowledge of results improved considerably in performance, whereas the other group continued making errors. A later study replicated this experiment but added a group that received feedback specifying the degree of error (Trowbridge & Cason, 1932). Subjects in this group achieved even greater accuracy than those who were simply told whether their answers were right or wrong. These studies are among numerous demonstrations of the importance of feedback. Researchers suggest that the performance improvements attributable to knowledge of results can be explained by both motivational and informational functions.
A study examining training practices in a safety program specifically addressed the issue of feedback (Komaki, Heinzmann, & Lawson, 1980). Komaki and colleagues asked whether training alone was sufficient or whether feedback was also necessary to maintain on-the-job performance. The study was conducted in the vehicle maintenance division of a large city's public works department — a department selected because of its high accident rates. The researchers conducted a needs assessment, including examination of safety logs to identify past incidents. With input from supervisors and workers, they designed procedures to eliminate accident-related problems. For example, if an accident had occurred because a worker fell from a jack stand, a training item covering the proper use of jacks and jack stands was included. The training program involved a series of procedures including slides depicting posed scenes of unsafe behavior, followed by discussions of proper safety procedures. Before training, employees were performing safely one- to two-thirds of the time. After training, performance improved by approximately 9%. When a further condition was added — daily feedback in the form of a graph showing the group's safety level relative to its goals — performance improved by 26% over the pre-training phase and 16% over the training-only phase. Komaki concluded that training alone is not sufficient to improve and maintain performance; training combined with feedback provides the most effective strategy.
Most training analysts have emphasized the importance of knowledge of results in the learning process. Unfortunately, many who stress its importance simply assume that any form of feedback delivered at any 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) developed a model describing important aspects of feedback perception and summarized several conclusions from the literature:
Feedback must be accurately perceived by the recipient to have an effect, yet it is often misperceived — particularly negative feedback. The accuracy with which feedback is perceived may be affected by the credibility of the source; individuals who wish to use feedback effectively need to develop credibility based on expertise or a trust relationship. High-frequency feedback is not always better, as it may signal a loss of personal control and lead recipients to rely excessively on external evaluation rather than developing their own capacity for self-assessment. Finally, the individual needs of the person should be considered when choosing feedback: high performers with growth-oriented needs require feedback that emphasizes competency and preserves personal initiative, while poor performers need careful monitoring and very specific guidance.
Feedback should be built into any given training program so that trainees can determine whether they are acquiring the correct material. Training designed to impart knowledge can incorporate feedback in two ways: by testing trainees with an examination, or by allowing trainees to ask questions of the trainer. Training designed to teach a skill should allow trainees to practice and receive feedback as they learn. For example, driver training should allow the learner to drive with an instructor who provides feedback, while also allowing the task itself to provide intrinsic feedback — such as whether the vehicle is staying in the correct lane.
Although the feedback literature appears comprehensive, no prior research examines the relationship between gender stereotypes and feedback preferences in training. To understand how gender stereotypes influence working adults' feedback preferences, it is first necessary to explore gender issues in the workplace. The following review examines how recent trends of organizational downsizing have affected women's access to training, and then discusses the career barriers that women face. Although this paper focuses specifically on adults' feedback preferences, the relevant literature commonly addresses women and minority groups together; both are therefore discussed here for accuracy.
Recent years have witnessed widespread organizational downsizing. One implication of a shrinking workforce is that it becomes increasingly necessary to maximize the potential of each individual worker. Future work organizations will depend more heavily on their ability to effectively engage many members of society, often through training and self-directed learning opportunities. Despite evidence that work is central to most individuals' lives, a number of difficult realities persist. Many researchers conclude that a contributing factor to lost opportunities for qualified individuals is the cycle of discrimination affecting minorities, women, and older workers. These lost opportunities have prompted increased litigation focused on organizational decisions regarding training access and its lack of availability to members of minority groups, women, older workers, and workers with disabilities.
The Human Performance Practices Survey (Bassi & Van Buren, 1998) found that women, minorities, and workers younger than 25 or older than 55 were less likely to receive training than men, white workers, and prime-age workers. Courts are eliminating training programs that discriminate in providing equal opportunity for promotion and job advancement — especially when completing such training is required for advancement. Much of the tension in this area arises because individuals view training as instrumental to career advancement and are concerned when programs are not made equally available to them. Some believe these difficulties will diminish as organizations face greater need for workers; others are less optimistic.
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 that crowds women and minorities into staff and managerial positions removed from the essential core of the business. The Commission notes that while over 50% of all master's degrees are awarded to women, over 97% of top-level executives in Fortune 1000 companies remain white males.
The scope of these difficulties was first detailed in a U.S. Department of Labor report examining employment and promotion practices at nine Fortune 500 firms (Sugawara, 1991). The study found that this seemingly invisible barrier frequently blocks women and minorities from advancement into management, and that such barriers exist at much lower levels of management than originally thought. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) has also been found to discriminate against women and Black workers in the type of training opportunities made available, with minorities and women more likely to be placed in training consistent with lower-level positions. Court cases concerning promotion opportunities have consequently become more frequent, with litigation targeting programs that determine who receives training opportunities qualifying individuals for managerial selection.
A Department of Labor audit by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance concluded that over half of companies doing business with the government have problems tracking affirmative action and developmental actions within their organizations. In a notable case involving Texaco, the company agreed to pay $3.1 million to 186 female employees who had received less than their male counterparts in what was described as the "largest glass ceiling settlement" ever reached; as part of the settlement, Texaco also agreed to expand opportunities for women and analyze its pay scales (Galvin, 1999).
Lyness and Thompson (1997) examined the glass ceiling effect at the top-executive level, studying women who had broken through the middle-management barrier and reached upper management. Comparing 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 had less authority, received fewer stock options, and had less international mobility than their male counterparts. The authors suggest these findings imply a more subtle, second-level glass ceiling at the upper reaches of organizations.
While some researchers challenge how widespread the glass ceiling effect is (e.g., Furchtgott-Roth & Stolba, 1999), it is clear the phenomenon warrants further study and enhanced organizational monitoring (Heneman, Waldeck, & Cushine, 1997). The 1998 Census of Women Board Directors of Fortune 500 Companies found that women were gaining some ground but still held only 11.1% of board seats (compared with 8.3% in 1993) and represented just 5.3% of corporate officers (Catalyst, 1998). Minority women were even less well represented, holding fewer than 1.4% of total board seats.
Arvey, Azevedo, Ostgaard, and Raghhuram (1997) contend that a possible cause of the glass ceiling is that the dominant white male culture at top organizational levels remains indifferent or even hostile to the advancement of women and minorities. Even organizations that actively recruit and promote women and minorities often fail to make the work culture genuinely hospitable to them (Sharpe, 1994). The U.S. Department of Labor argues that the primary cause of the glass ceiling is that organizations do not hold managers and executives accountable for fair employment practices. Closed internal labor markets further disadvantage women and minorities, who are less likely to be informed of job openings or to receive training and development opportunities that would improve their qualifications and chances for promotion (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995).
One suggested remedy for the glass ceiling is to fast-track women and minority employees through special training and development opportunities, mentorship, and assignments to pivotal jobs that provide core experience and boost retention (Arvey et al., 1997). Xerox, for example, has studied its managerial positions, identified pivotal roles, and set goals for placing women and minorities in those positions and developing their talents (Sessa, 1992). Procter & Gamble developed an orientation program called "On-Boarding" specifically for women entering the organization, designed to build awareness of issues arising from working within the existing organizational culture (Cox, 1993). Workshops have also been created for supervisors and managers to help them understand how perceptions of events can influence important decisions such as promotions and career progressions for minority group members (Alderfer, 1992). To encourage such proactive steps, the U.S. Department of Labor offers the Exemplar Voluntary Efforts (EVE) Awards to federal contractors working to shatter the glass ceiling.
Based on this research, it is reasonable to assume that organizations are increasingly aware of the glass ceiling effect and related issues, and that more women and minority group members are being placed on fast tracks and receiving special training opportunities. However, acknowledging workplace discrimination and taking steps to combat it may not be sufficient to break the glass ceiling. Other barriers — notably gender stereotypes — may affect its resilience and may neutralize the very enhancing effects that special training opportunities were intended to create.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.