Sex stereotyping in the executive suite: 'Much ado about something

Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite:"Much Ado About Something"

Richard F. MartellMontana State University

Christopher ParkerNorthern Illinois University'

Cynthia G. EmrichPurdue University

Marnie Swerdlin CrawfordPersonnel Decisiotis, International

Studies of how managerial women are perceived in the workplace, ascompared with men, have been concerned mostly with entry and middlelevels of management. Surprisingly, little attention has been directed towhether men and women are perceived differently on the attributesassociated with successful executives (vice-president level and above).To address this question, an inventory comprised of attributes deemedcharacteristic of successful executives was first constructed. Principalcomponents analysis identified four key factors underlying the execu-tive attribute inventory. Next, the inventory was completed by 132 malemanagers,eachof whom rated one of four target groups: women middlemanagers, men middle managers, successful women middle managers,or successful men middle managers. Results revealed sex differences(always favoring men) on all but the Results-Oriented factor. Whendepicted as middle managers, women were rated less favorably than menon the Change Agent, Managerial Courage, and Leadership factors.When depicted as successful middle managers, sex differences wereeliminated only on the Leadership factor ratings. These findings supportthe "lack of fit" explanation for the current dearth of women executivesand suggest that the "pipeline" explanation is overly optimistic.

Author info: RICHARD F. MARTELL, Department of Psychology, Montana State Univer-sity, Bozeman, MT 59717-0344; (406) 994-3930; fax (406) 994-3804; [email protected].

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1998, Vol. 13, No. I, 127-138.

©1998 Select Press, Corte Madera, CA, 415/435-4461.

128 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY

Research on sex stereotyping in the managerial ranks reveals thatwomen are seen as lacking the characteristics most needed to succeedand, consequently, are often judged to be less qualified than men (seeHeilman, 1995 for a review). Over 20 years ago, Schein (1973) adminis-tered a 92-item descriptive index to men managers and found a moder-ately strong positive relationship between descriptions of men andsuccessful managers, whereas there was no relationship between de-scriptions of women and successful managers. More recently, Heilman,Block, Martell and Simon (1989) replicated these findings and foundthat characterizations of successful middle managers were more similarto descriptions of men than of women, even when they had been depictedas middle managers.

Although this line of research is important theoretically and practi-cally, it does suffer from a limitation—almost every study of sex stereo-typing in the workplace has examined characterizations of men andwomen for entry and middle /evels of management, with little attentionto whether men and women in positions of middle management areperceived differently on the attributes associated with successful execu-tives. The one exception (Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995) exploredperceptions of students and not managers. Thus, the first goal of thisresearch was to examine whether women middle managers are perceivedby today's managers as less qualified (i.e., lacking the necessary at-tributes) for entry into the executive suite than men middle managers.

One reason to believe that women managers are hindered by sexstereotypes depicting them as less qualified than their men counterpartsis their extraordinarily slow progress from middle management to theexecutive suite—only 2% to 5% of executive-level positions are filledby women (U.S. Department of Labor, 1995). Some organizationalscholars have even argued that women who aspire to higher statuspositions in organizations are most affected by negative stereotypes, forsuch women are violating sex role expectations (see Nieva & Gutek,1980). Consistent with these views, the 1995 Federal Glass CeilingCommission (Department of Labor, 1995, p. 10) concluded that"... equally qualified ... citizens are being denied equal access to ad-vancement into senior-level management on the basis of gender "This conclusion is supported by research which finds that, despite anabsence of sex differences in either managerial ability or motivation(Dipboye, 1987), women fare less well than men do with regard to workperformance ratings, earnings, and organizational mobility, even aftercontrolling for possible human capital differences (Bilimoria & Piderit,1994; Cannings, 1988; Melamed, 1995; Stroh, Brett & Reilly, 1992).

Martell et al. SEX STEREOTY PING 129

In contrast, a number of arguments have been offered in support ofthe belief that sex stereotyping has, for the most part, been eliminated.First, it is believed that the passage of civil rights legislation as well asongoing corporate attention to issues of workplace equality have had thesalutary effect of discouraging sex stereotyping. Second, because thecurrent generation of women middle managers moving up the ranks isbelieved to be invested with the same "human capital" (viz., educationallevels, training and development opportunities, etc.) as men, differentialperceptions ofthe competencies of men and women are expected to allbut disappear. Finally, it has been argued that, by overcoming variousobstacles and ultimately reaching middle-level positions in the organiza-tion, these women are seen as "exceptions" and, thus, escape beingstereotyped. Research on how stereotypes are maintained in the face ofdisconfirming evidence by creating "exceptions to the rule" providessome support for this latter view (Deaux, Winton, Crowley, & Lewis.1985). Each of these arguments, although different, offer a decidedlyoptimistic stance, suggesting the inevitable demise of bias at even thehighest levels of organizations as more women move into middle man-agement. (For a more in-depth discussion of each argument, see Depart-ment of Labor, 1995; Rhode, 1997.) Such optimism surfaced recently ina survey of 325 chief executive officers, the majority of whom believedthat the current paucity of women executives was a "pipeline" problemthat would soon be remedied (Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998).

It is interesting to note that managers' explanations for the paucityof women executives appear to vary by gender. Women managers oftenpoint to an uneven playing field that disadvantages them in their climb tf)the top (e.g., Ragins et al., 1998; Maupin, 1993; Segal & Zellner. 1992).In one survey of 461 top corporate women, 52% identified male stereo-types of women as the primary barrier to advancement (Ragins et al..1998) and, in another survey of 400 women executives. 70% identifiedthe male-dominated culture as an obstacle to their success (Segal &Zellner, 1992).

In contrast, there is evidence indicating that men managers contendthat organizational obstacles responsible for limiting women's progresshave been dismantled and, as a result, women no longer are seriouslydisadvantaged in their bid for the executive suite (e.g.. Ragins et til..1998; Maupin, 1993). Indeed, in a study of Big Six accounting firms(Maupin, 1993) that explored accountants' explanations for why a sig-nificantly greater proportion of women than men fail to achieve partnerstatus, men believed that women accountants lack the ability and desire.Women, however, pointed to organizational impediments such as sexstereotyping as obstacles to their advancement.


A second goal was to extend previous research on categorizationtheory (Deux et al., 1985) to our investigation of sex stereotyping.According to categorization theory, it is erroneous to think of a single,global stereotype as defining all women. Rather, there exists multiple"subtypes" (e.g., career woman, homemaker) and each is categorized bya different constellation of attributes that vary in the degree to which theydepict individuals in stereotypic fashion. Furthermore, including counter-stereotypic information about an individual, can, under some circum-stances, trigger a "subtype" and thereby diminish stereotyping in subse-quent characterizations (see Heilman et al., 1989 for an example).Accordingly, we explored whether objective verification of successwould weaken individuals' reliance on sex stereotypes when describingthe perceived fit of men versus women middle managers for the execu-tive suite.

Finally, given the particular aims of this study, several changes weremade to the methodological and data-analytic strategy used in priorresearch. The descriptive index used by Schein, and many other re-searchers since, includes items that are well over 30 years old. Moreover,it was not initially developed to measure the perceived characteristics ofexecutives. Thus, a new set of items was created, and factor analyzed, soas to yield a final set of factors believed to be characteristic of successfulexecutives (see Method). Also, research using the Schein descriptiveindex has almost always assessed sex stereotyping by comparing differ-ences in the degree of similarity of ratings of successful middle manag-ers with ratings of men (in general, as managers, and as successfulmanagers) as compared with ratings of women (in general, as managers,and as successful managers), usually relying on correlational analyses.However, given our goal of directly assessing male-female differenceson the attributes deemed characteristic of successful executives, ananalysis of variance framework was deemed more appropriate.

Three samples of men managers, all at middle to senior levels ofmanagement, were used in this study. (Because decision-making author-ity in organizations is most often held by men in at least middle-levels ofmanagement, assessing only their perceptions, as opposed to those oflower-level or women managers, seemed appropriate for this initialinvestigation.) The first two samples helped to identify the individualattributes deemed characteristic of successful executives as well as thefactors underlying the executive attribute inventory. The final groupdescribed either men middle managers, women middle managers, suc-cessful men middle managers or successful women middle managers,using the executive attribute inventory.

Our predictions were as follows;

Martell et al. SEX STEREOTYPING 131

(a) Despite recent advances of women into middle manage-ment, the pertinent literature, together with reports of se-nior-level women managers, suggest that sex stereotypeswill negatively affect perceptions of women managers.Thus, we expected women middle managers would becharacterized less favorably than men middle managers onthe factors deemed necessary to succeed in the executivesuite.

(b) Providing explicit verification of managerial "success"was expected to significantly reduce reliance on sex stereo-types; thus, differences in the less favorable characteriza-tions of women middle managers (as compared with menmiddle managers) would be significantly reduced.

METHOD

ParticipantsOverall, 297 male managers recruited from executive development

programs and business organizations participated in this study. Allparticipants worked in a wide range of industries (e.g., aerospace,computer, financial, manufacturing) and occupational functions (e.g.,engineering, finance, production, sales). Their ages ranged from 25 to 62years (Mdn = 37) and managerial experience ranged from 1 to 35 (Mdn= 12). The research was presented to all participants as part of a univer-sity-based project. Participation was voluntary and, to ensure completeanonymity, no identifying information was collected.

DesignThe design was a 2 x 2 between subjects factorial, with sex of target

manager (male, female) and label of target manager (middle manager,successful middle manager) as the independent variables.

Measurement InstrumentTo identify the attributes believed characteristic of successful ex-

ecutives, an exhaustive search of the executive development literaturewas conducted and led to a total of 76 nonredundant attributes. Ninemale executives were then recruited to select the attributes they per-ceived as most characteristic of successful executives. Using a "two-thirds agreement" rule, 32 attributes were chosen for inclusion in theexecutive attribute inventory. Next, the Inventory was administered to163 managers who were asked to rate a "successful executive" on each ofthe 32 attributes using a 7-point scale, with the endpoints labeled


1 {extremely uncharacteristic) to 7 {extremely characteristic). Completedata were obtained from 156 managers.

Participants' ratings were subjected to a principal components fac-tor analysis and a scree test that indicated a maximum of seven factorsshould be retained. Further, as the scree test tends to overestimate thenumber of factors (Zwick& Velicer, 1986), solutions (based on promaxrotations) retaining fewer factors were examined. The four factor solu-tion provided the most interpretable set of factors. After dropping 9 itemsthat did not have factor loadings of at least .40, a second principalcomponents factor analysis followed by an oblique (promax) rotationwas conducted to generate final factor loadings. Before proceeding, weverified that the sample size was sufficient to provide a stable factorsolution by calculating the g" statistic advocated by Guadagnoli andVelicer (1988). The obtained value of g" (.007) was well below therecommended cutoff (.01), indicating an adequate sample size.

The four factors were labeled as follows: Change Agent, ManagerialCourage, Leadership, and Results-Oriented. (The final factor loadingsare available from the senior author.) These factors are consistent withcharacteristics of successful executives discussed in the practitioner andacademic research literature. For example, John Kotter's (1990) book.Force for Change, exhorted senior managers to more actively managechange in response to a continuously changing and chaotic marketplace.And, a survey of 24 chief executive officers identified "creating acontext of change" as one of their most critical responsibilities (Jonas,Fry, & Srivastva, 1990). Managerial courage also has been a topic ofinterest, with numerous discussions of its importance to organizationaldevelopment and change efforts (see Hornstein, 1986; Spreitzer, McCall,& Mahoney, 1997). Finally, both leadership skills and the ability toobtain desired results have long been thought of as keys to success in theexecutive suite (Bass, 1990).

ProcedureTo test our hypotheses, the Inventory was administered to 134 men

managers, each randomly assigned to rate either women middle manag-ers (n = 36), men middle managers (n = 31), successful women middlemanagers (n = 33), or successful men middle managers (n = 32).Complete data were obtained from 132 participants. The distribution ofage, managerial experience and research site did not differ across targetrating conditions. Items previously identified as contributing to the fourfactors descriptive of successful executives were combined to formscales. For each participant, the average of the item ratings on each factorwas taken as the scale score. The items included in each scale, and the


TABLE Executive Attribute Scales

ChangeAgent

a =.81

ManagerialCourage

a =.77

LeadershipAbility

a =.80

ResultsOriented

a = .84

Insptrattonal

Risk-taker

Energetic

Decisive

Persuasive

Courageous

Learns fromadversity

Resilient

Resourceful

Intelligent

Leadership ability

Team builder

Well-informed

Visionary

Strategic thinker

Proactive

Industrious

Articulate

Politically-astute

Action-oriented

High-expectations

Achievement-oriented

reliability coefficient for eacb scale appear in Table 1. Intercottelationsbetween the four scale scores are reported in Table 2. It should be notedthat because all four scales are consistent with prevailing tnale stetco-types, and each captures a component of the "successful executive." it isnot surprising that they are intercorrelated. Heilman. Block and Martell(1995) reported similar intercorrelations among factors in their study ofmiddle managers. There is good reason to treat them as conceptuallydistinct, however. The factor loadings revealed that each attribute fellcleanly into one (and only one) of the four factors and, as can be seennext, they are affected quite differently by the experimental manipula-tions.

TABLE 2 Intercorrelations Between Executive Attribute Scales

1. Change Agent2. Managerial Courage

3. Leadership Ability

4. Results-Oriented

.73*

.77*

.75*

_

.78

.76

*p < .01.

.74*


TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations of the ExecutiveAttribute Scale Ratings

Change Agent

Managerial Courage

Leadership Ability

Results-Oriented

Middle Manager

Men(n=3])

4.95(.77)

5.01(.70)

4.89(.68)

4.98(.71)

Women(n=36)

4.29(.75)

4.44(.81)

4.37(.74)

4.80(.70)

SuccessfulMiddle Manager

Men(n=32)

5.66(.76)

5.52(.68)

5.35(.75)

5.61(.71)

Women(n=33)

5.28(.80)

5.35(.74)

5.49(.79)

5.55(.71)

Note: Higher means indicate "more characteristic" ratings on the factor. SDs areenclosed in parentheses.

RESULTS

A 2 (sex: men, women) x 2 (label: middle manager, successfulmiddle manager) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on eachof the 4 scale ratings and, when necessary, followed up with protectedt-tests. Preliminary analyses revealed that neither participant age, mana-gerial experience nor research site moderated the results. The means andstandard deviations for each of the scale ratings are presented in Table 3.

Change Agent. Analysis of variance of the Change Agent scaleratings revealed a main effect for success F(l,128) = 38.95, p < .0001,r = .21, with more favorable ratings accorded to successful managers.More importantly, there was a main effect for sex F( 1,128) - 14.94, p <.001, r = .08, indicating that men (M = 5.30) were characterized morefavorably as change agents than women (M = 4.78). Contrary to ourprediction, the sex x label interaction was not significant, F(l,128) =1.21, p - .27, indicating that verification of success failed to reliablydiminish sex stereotyping.

Managerial Courage. Analysis of variance of the Managerial Cour-age scale ratings revealed a main effect for success F( 1,128) = 27.85, p <.0001, r = . 17, indicating more favorable ratings of successful manag-ers. More central to this research, there was a main effect for sex

Martell e t a l . SEX STEREOTYPING I3.'>

F(l,128) - 5.48, p < .02, r̂ = .034, indicating that men (M = 5.26) wereperceived as being more courageous than women (M = 4.89). Contrary toour prediction, the sex x label interaction was not significant, F(l,128) =1.20, p= .28, and, thus, verificationof success failed to reliably diminishsex stereotyping.

Leadership. Analysis of variance of the Leadership scale ratingsrevealed main effects for success F(l,128) = 46.86, p < .0001, r̂ - .25,and sex F(l,128) = 5.29, p < .02, r̂ = .028. However, a significant sex xlabel interaction F(l,128) = 3.09, p < .08, r" = .016, qualified theseresults. Protected t-tests revealed that men middle managers were ratedmore favorably than women middle managers, t(65) = 2.88, p < .01, r ' =.11, whereas sex differences in the Leadership scale ratings were elimi-nated when verification of managerial success was provided, t(63) =1.03, ns.

Results-Oriented. Analysis of variance ofthe Results-Oriented scaleratings revealed only a main effect for success F( 1,128) = 31.47, p <.0001, r̂ = .195. Neither the main effect for sex F(l,128) = .96, p = .33,nor the sex x label interaction was significant, F(l,128) = .19, p = .67,providing no evidence of sex stereotyping on this scale rating.

DISCUSSION

This study provides empirical evidence of sex stereotyping on thecharacteristics associated with successful executives. When depicted asmiddle managers, women were rated less favorably than men on all butthe Results-Oriented factor: Women were seen as less inspirational,decisive, and energetic (Change Agent); less courageous, resilient, andresourceful (Managerial Courage); and less of a leader, visionary, andstrategic thinker (Leadership). When depicted as successful middlemanagers, sex differences were eliminated only on the Leadership rat-ings; thus, providing only partial support for the prediction that explicitverification of managerial success would eliminate sex stereotyping.

These findings shed light on two very different explanations for whythere are so few women executives. The "lack of fit" explanation(Heilman, 1983) posits that women managers are thought to lack theattributes deemed critical for success—this belief, if unchecked, can biasthe work performance ratings and promotion opportunities accorded towomen. In contrast, the "pipeline" explanation offers a more benignaccount, arguing that the paucity of women executives is a vestige of pastdiscrimination and that as more women enter the ranks of middlemanagement, the glass ceiling will ultimately shatter. Although thereprobably are numerous reasons for the near absence of women in theexecutive ranks, our data support the lack of fit explanation, suggesting


that merely increasing the number of women in the pipeline is unlikely toameliorate their current underrepresenation in the executive suite.

Stereotyping effects in this study were, in statistical terms, small tomoderate. It is important, however, to recognize that exceedingly smallamounts of sex bias are sufficient to seriously stunt the upward mobilityof women managers. This point was recently made with a computersimulation of a hypothetical company in which extremely modest sexbias effects (viz., 1% of the variance in work ratings accounted for byratee sex) dramatically limited the number of women who gained entryinto senior management (Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996). Thus, it is fairto conclude that the magnitude of sex stereotyping obtained in this studyis of practical importance.

It should not be assumed that sex bias is inevitable. Rather, it isuseful to conceive of sex stereotypes as initial expectations that, depend-ing on a host of other factors, may or may not introduce bias intosubsequent perceptions and judgments. For example, research points tonumerous factors than can sometimes override the effects of even verydiagnostic target information, causing individuals to fall back on theirstereotypic beliefs. Such factors include limited interaction with thetarget person (Fiske, 1993), heightened attentional demands imposed ondecision-makers (Martell, 1991; 1996) and inadequate perceiver motiva-tion (Kruglanski, 1989), to name a few.

The findings of this study suggest a number of questions worthy offuture research. First, it should be noted that the Inventory measuredmanagers' implicit theories regarding the attributes required to succeedin the executive suite. Whether there is any correspondence to realitywas beyond the scope of our investigation. However, such beliefs, evenif illusory, can exact a heavy toll on those individuals who, by dint oftheir group membership, are perceived as lacking. Second, the Inventorymeasured only the cognitive component of stereotypes—participants'beliefs regarding the attributes that characterize men and women inmiddle management positions. Stereotypes are also comprised of anaffective component—one's positive or negative feelings toward a mem-ber of a particular group. Future efforts to distinguish between these twocomponents are critical because stereotype-induced beliefs and feelingsdo not always operate similarly. Finally, only men managers served asparticipants in this study; and, thus, future research should consider theviews held by managerial women. This is especially important becauserecent research suggests that women in management may no longeradhere to stereotypic views as they once did (Brenner etal., 1989; Dodgeetal., 1995).


In closing, this study demonstrated that, compared with their mencounterparts, women in middle management are seen as lacking what ittakes to succeed in executive levels of management. And thus, it is withgood reason that women believe that the prevalence of sex stereotypescontinue to impede their upward mobility. Perhaps these findings willhelp to correct the misconception that all is well for women middlemanagers who aspire toward even greater heights. But for now. iiappears that concern about sex stereotyping in the executive suite is"much ado about something."

R E F E R E N C E S

Bass, B. U990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York: The FreePress.

Bilimoria, D. & Piderit. S.K. (1994). Board committee membership: Effect.'; olsex-based bias. Academy of Matiagement Journal. 37. 1453-1477.

Brenner, O.C., Tomkiewicz. J.. & Schein, V.E. (1989). The relationship belweensex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited.Academy of Management Journal. 32. 662-669.

Cannings, K. (1988). Managerial promotion: The effect of socialization, special-ization and gender. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 42. 77-88.

Deaux, K., Winton, W.. Crowley, H.. & Lewis, L.L. (1985). Level of categori-zation and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition. 3. 145-167.

Dipboye, R.L. (1987). Problems and progress of women in management. In K.S.Koziara, M.S. Moskow, & L.D. Tannern (Eds.). Working women: Past.present, and future (pp. 118-153). Washington. DC: Bureau of NationalAffairs.

Dodge, K.A.. Gilroy. F.D.. & Fenzel. L.M. (1995). Requisite managementcharacteristics revisited: Two decades later. Journal of Social Behavior andPersonality. 10. 253-264.

Fiske, S.T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyp-ing. American Psychologist. 48. 621-628.

Guadagnoli. E.. & Velicer. W.F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stabilityof component patterns. Psychological Bulletin. 103. 265-275.

Heilman, M.E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack-of-fit modc\. Reseanhin Organizatiotial Behavior. 5. 268-298.

Heilman. M.E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: Whiitwe know and what we don't know. Journal of Social Behavior andPersonality. 10. 3-26.

Heilman. M.E.. Block. C , Martell. R.F.. & Simon, M. (1989). Has anythingchanged? Current characterizations of men. women, and managers. Journalof Applied Psychology. 74, 935-942.

Heilman, M.E.. Block. C . & Martell. R.F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do theyinfluence perceptions of managers? Voi<ni(7/o/5oc;a/Be/ifliTO/«/if/PtT.sY)/!-ality. 10, 237-252.

Hornstein. H.A. (1986). Matiagerial courage: Revitalizing your company wiili-out sacrificing your job. Wiley: New York.

Jonas, H.S.. Fry. R.E.. & Srivastva, S. (1990). The office of CEO: Understandingthe executive experience. Academy of Management E.xecutive. 4. 36-48.


Kotter, J.P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from manage-ment. New York: The Free Press.

Kruglanski, A. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive andmotivational bases. New York: Plenum Press.

Martell, R.F. (1991). Sex bias at work: The effects of attentional and memorydemands on performance ratings .of men and women. Jounml of AppliedSocial Psychology, 21, 1939-1960.

Martell, R.F. (1996). What mediates gender bias in work behavior ratings? SexRoles, 35, 153-169.

Martell. R.F., Lane, D.M., & Emrich, C.E. (1996). Male-Female differences: Acomputer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157-158.

Maupin, R.J. (1993). How can women's lack of upward mobility in accountingorganizations be explained? Group and Organization Management. 18.132-152.

Meiamed, T. (1996). Career success: An assessment of a gender-specific model.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 217-242.

Nieva, V.F., & Gutek, B.A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy ofManagement Review, 5, 267-276.

Ragins, B.R., Townsend, B.I, & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executivesuite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling.Academy of Management Executive, 12, 28-42.

Rhode, D.L. (1997). Speaking of sex: The denial of gender inequality. HarvardUniversity Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Schein, V.E. (1973). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisitemanagement characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100.

Segal, A.T., & Zellner, W. (1992). Corporate women. Business Week, June 8: 74-83.

Spreitzer, CM., McCall, M.W., & Mahoney, J.D. (1997). Early identification ofintemational executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6-29.

Stroh, L.K., Brett, J.M., & Reilly. A.H. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparisonof female and male managers' career progression. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77, 251-260.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1995). The glass ceiling fact-finding report: Goodfor business—Making full use ofthe nation's human capital. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Zwick, W.R., & Velicer, W.F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determiningthe number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.

Documents

Sex stereotyping in the executive suite: 'Much ado about something