Development and Validation of the Stereotype Beliefs about Women Managers Scale

This paper presents preliminary evidence on the internal consistency and validity of a scale designed to measure the degree to which one believes women managers experience a greater number of obstacles and more critical judgments about their work performance as compared to managerial men (the Stereotype Beliefs about Women Managers scale; SBWMS). Survey data from 1337 managerial and nonmanagerial men and women employed by a large manufacturing organization revealed that the 6-item scale possessed a single factor. Significant mean group differences and correlations between the SBWMS and a number of organizationally-relevant measures provide good preliminary support for the scale’s validity. Stereotyped Beliefs 3 Development and Validation of the Stereotype Beliefs about Women Managers Scale Despite the fact that women have increasingly occupied managerial positions in recent years, many researchers have noted that women managers continue to face a number of hardships in these roles (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Lyness & Thompson, 1997) including negative beliefs and judgments from coworkers about their levels of commitment (Lane & Piercy, 2003), greater levels of work and nonwork-related stress (Lundberg & Frankenhaeuser, 1999), and slower than expected promotion or advancement as compared to equally qualified or educated men (Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992). Authors have speculated that such outcomes arise from a number of sources, including negative attitudes stemming from the perceived violation of traditional female roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although there has been some debate over its factor structure (Crino, White, & DeScantis, 1981; Crino, White, & Looney, 1985; Cordano, Scherer, & Owen, 2003; Ilgen & Moore, 1983), the 21item Women as Managers scale (WAMS; Terborg, Peters, Ilgen, & Smith, 1977) is one of the most often cited instruments for measuring such negative attitudes toward managerial women. The item content for the scale includes statements about women’s leadership potential (e.g., “It is not acceptable for women to assume leadership roles as often as men”) as well as beliefs regarding the degree to which women possess various traits thought to be useful in managerial positions (e.g., “Women are not ambitious enough to be successful in the business world”). The WAMS, however, also contains items that tap attitudes toward women’s employment more globally (e.g., “On the average, a woman who stays at home all the time with her children is a better mother than a woman who works outside the home at least half time”) and general skills (e.g., “Women are less capable of learning mathematical and mechanical skills than are men”). Another measure, the Managerial Attitudes Toward Women Executives Stereotyped Beliefs 4 (MATWE; Dubno, Costas, & Cannon, 1979), is similar in focus and has shown high convergence with the WAMS. A related, but importantly different perspective of such attitudes is the perception that prejudice and unfair evaluation exist for women managers. That is, even if one does not personally endorse a negative attitude toward women managers, one may still believe that others in the work environment hold such beliefs and treat them unfairly. We argue that this perception of what others believe or of how others treat managerial women, specifically when considered from the viewpoint of managerial women, is similar to the concept of stereotype threat (Steele, 1997). This concept has been defined as “the social-psychological threat that arises when one is in a situation …for which a negative stereotype about one’s group applies (p. 614).” In laboratory experiments, significant performance differences between Black and White students on tests of academic achievement have been explained by stereotype threat, as have performance differences between women and men on mathematics tests. A number of studies have found heightened levels of arousal and anxiety stemming from the stereotype threat to be one of possible underlying mechanisms responsible for performance differences (e.g., Schmader & Johns, 2003). To the extent that such threat or anxiety becomes a form of workplace stress, we believe that a logical extension of this research to the arena of work might be useful in explaining not only performance outcome differences between managerial men and women, but also differences in job attitudes and stress-related health problems. This paper presents preliminary data on a scale designed to measure the degree to which one believes that women managers confront obstacles to their success and judgments about their work performance that are more critical or harsher than those experienced by managerial men. Unlike the WAMS or the MATWE, the focus of the present scale is narrowed to measure Stereotyped Beliefs 5 perceptions of managerial women (rather than working women generally) and the perceived evaluation-related differences or biases they experience (rather than one’s own positive or negative beliefs regarding the quality of managerial women’s work performance). Thus, although we propose that the meaning of these items will be invariant for managerial and nonmanagerial men and women, we do anticipate significant group differences both in scale means and the degree to which it correlates with a number of organizationally-relevant outcomes. For managerial women, we posit that this scale will be associated with the degree of threat and discomfort one perceives as a function of her own group’s stereotype. To a lesser degree, we believe that this scale may also be associated with stereotype threat for nonmanagerial women, given that gender distinctions (i.e., comparison between managerial men and women) are emphasized with the items on the scale. For men, we likewise believe that this scale measures their perceptions that managerial women experience harsher performance-related judgments; however, we would not expect these perceptions to be associated with any personal threat for men. These distinctions have important implications for scale validation: If valid, we would expect significant mean group differences with managerial women scoring highest followed by nonmanagerial women and then men. Likewise, we posit that a valid scale would show varying levels of convergence with work-related variables for the three groups. Given the body of evidence that has shown differences in the perceptions of managerial men and women’s work performance (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Singh, 2003), we believe that a short, reliable measure focused specifically on this aspect of managerial women’s job performance could make a useful contribution to the literature. Stereotyped Beliefs 6