Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 11, Issue 9–10, pp 759–769 | Cite as

Dimensions of need for power: Personalized vs. socialized power in female and male managers

  • Leonard H. Chusmir
  • Barbara Parker
Article

Abstract

Sex differences in two dimensions of need for Power—Socialized Power (s Pwr) and Personalized Power (p Pwr)—were examined for a sample of 124 managerial women and men. Correlations with job satisfaction were analyzed as well as the ability of two versions of the thematic apperception test (TAT) to measure both s Pwr and p Pwr. Results show that female managers are higher than male managers in the “desirable” s Pwr need and the same in the “less desirable” p Pwr. Socialized Power correlates significantly with job satisfaction for the males, but not for the females. Personalized Power shows no significant correlation for either gender. Both versions of the TAT are interchangeable and scores are comparable for s Pwr and p Pwr.

Keywords

Social Psychology Managerial Woman Female Manager Male Manager Thematic Apperception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1958.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, L. K. The woman manager in the United States. Washington: Business and Professional Women's Foundation, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. Chusmir, L. H. Sex differences in the motivation of managers: A look at need achievement, need affiliation, and need power. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, October, 1981, 42(4), 1767A.Google Scholar
  4. Chusmir, L. H. Women in management: A look at motivational needs. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, Texas, August 1983.Google Scholar
  5. Chusmir, L. H. Male-oriented vs. balanced-as-to-sex thematic apperception tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1983b, 47, 29–35.Google Scholar
  6. Colwill, N. L. The new partnership: Women and men in organizations. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. Day, D. R. and Stogill, R. M. Leader behavior in male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 353–360.Google Scholar
  8. Donnell, S. M., and Hall, J. Men and women as managers: A significant case of no significant differences. Organizational Dynamics, 1980, 8, 60–77.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, C. F. Women's attitudes toward other women—Myths and their consequences. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1980, 34, 322–333.Google Scholar
  10. Gilligan, C. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. Hacker, A. U/S: A statistical portrait of the American people. New York: Viking, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E. III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259–286.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, D. T. A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college educated women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 471–486.Google Scholar
  14. Harlan, A., and Weiss, C. L. Sex differences in factors affecting managerial career advancement. In P. A. Wallace, ed., Women in the workplace. Boston: Auburn House, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. Hoppock, R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper & Row, 1935.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, P. Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 99–109.Google Scholar
  17. Kotter, J. P. Power, dependence, and effective management. Harvard Business Review, 1977, 125–136.Google Scholar
  18. McClelland, D. C. The achieving society, Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1961.Google Scholar
  19. McClelland, D. C. The two faces of power. Journal of International Affairs, 1970, 24, 31.Google Scholar
  20. McClelland, D. C. Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvinton, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. McClelland, D. C., and Burnham, D. Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 1976, 54, 100–110.Google Scholar
  22. McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. Motivating Economic Achievement, New York: Free Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  23. McNichols, C. W., Stahl, M. J., & Rober, M. J. A validation of Hoppock's job satisfaction measure. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 737–742.Google Scholar
  24. Miner, J. B. Theories of organizational behavior. Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  25. Nadler, D. A., Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E. III. Managing organizational behavior. New York: Little Brown and Company, 1979, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  26. O'Leary, V. E. Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 809–826.Google Scholar
  27. Powell, G. N. Career development and the woman manager—A social power perspective. Personnel, 1980, 22–32.Google Scholar
  28. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. Perceived sex differences in managerially relevant characteristics. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 837–843.Google Scholar
  29. Schein, V. E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 95–100.Google Scholar
  30. Tewari, H. C. A study of women managers need for achievement, affiliation, and power. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 39, 3040A.Google Scholar
  31. Van Wagner, K., & Swanson, C. From Machiavelli to ms: Differences in male-female power styles. Public Administration Review, 1979, 39, 66–72.Google Scholar
  32. Winter, D. G. The power motive. New York: The Free Press, 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard H. Chusmir
    • 1
  • Barbara Parker
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Colorado In DenverUSA
  2. 2.University of Colorado in BoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations