Skip to main content
Log in

The gender model revisited: Differences in the management styles of men and women

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Qualitative data from 22 women and 18 men managers and their secretaries were analyzed to provide insights into gender differences in managerial styles. Traditional management style topologies, based largely on studies of men's behaviors, were called into question. Using an approach that allowed other topologies to emerge from the data, the respondents perceived that women were both task and people oriented, while men appeared image engrossed and autonomy invested. Respondents reported a strong preference for their gender-appropriate model and misunderstanding, even exasperation, with those using the alternative approach. The existence of such different models, especially if unrecognized, would place women at a disadvantage, since their success as managers is usually assessed by men who are likely to have a strong preference for the male-typed approach. The findings also suggest possible modifications to existing measures of managerial styles, particularly a consideration of image-engrossed approaches. Future research is suggested to further explore and confirm these findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnard, C. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartol, K. R. Male vs. female leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 225–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. The female world. New York: The Free Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, K., & Johnson, S. One-minute manager: The quickest way to increase your own prosperity. New York: Berkley Books, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. K. Women and business management. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1979, 5, 267–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cann, C. H. Women, organizations and power: Structural and individual perspectives. In M. Barrett & S. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings from Women and Work Conference. Arlington, TX: University of Texas at Arlington, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K. Self evaluations of male and female managers. Sex Roles, 1979, 5, 571–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldberg, R. L., & Glenn, E. N. Male and female: job versus gender models in the sociology of work. Social Problems, 1979, 26, 524–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M., Huber, J., & Spitze, G. Preference for men as bosses and professionals. Social Forces, 1979, 58, 466–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlan, A., & Weiss, C. Moving up: Women in managerial career ladders. Working paper No. 86. Wellesley College Center for Research and Women, Wellesley, Massachusetts.

  • Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurik, N., & Halemba, G. Gender, working conditions and job satisfaction of women in a nontraditional occupation: Female corrections officers in men's prisons. Sociological Quarterly, 1984, 25, 551–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. The change masters: Innovations for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1983. (a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. Women managers: Moving up in a high tech society. In Jennie Farley (Ed.), The woman in management: career and family issues. New York: ILR Press, Cornell University, 1983. (b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Korn, and Ferry. Korn and Ferry international's profile of women senior executives. Los Angeles, CA: Korn and Ferry, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. Human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, D. The human side of enterprises. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O'Neil, P. A. Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1980, 7, 337–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, J. Women's dress for success book. New York: Warner, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses, J., & Boehm, V. Relationship of assessment-center performance to management process of women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 527–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickeles, E., & Ashcraft, L. The coming matriarchy: How women will gain the balance of power. New York: Seaview Books, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieva, V. R., & Gutek, B. A. Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T., and Bales, R. (Eds.), Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, Il.: The Free Press, 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riger, S., & Gilligan, P. Women in management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 902–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risman, B. J. A theoretical note on gender: Toward a structuralist perspective of intimate relationships. Paper presented to the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., 1985.

  • Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. Perceived sex differences in managerially relevant characteristics. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 837–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosener, L. Alpha and beta leadership styles. Mimeo. Stanford Research Institute, Stanford, CA, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L. Intimate strangers. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagaria, M. A. The managerial skills and experiences of men and women administrators: similarities and differences. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 1985, 5, 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., & Grenier, M. Sources of organizational power for women: Overcoming structural obstacles. Sex Roles, 1982, 8, 733–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • South, S., Bonjean, C., Corder, J., & Markham, W. Sex and power in the federal bureaucracy: A comparative analysis of male and female supervisors. Work and Occupations, 1982, 9, 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terborg, J. Women in management: A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 647–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C. Why can't a woman be more like a man?” Work and Occupations, 1982, 9, 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R., & Lippitt, R. Leader behavior and member reaction in three ‘social climates.’ Īn D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M., & Greenfield, S. Women managers and fear of success: A study in the field. Sex Roles, 1976, 2, 375–387.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Statham, A. The gender model revisited: Differences in the management styles of men and women. Sex Roles 16, 409–430 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289552

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289552

Keywords

Navigation