Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 299–313 | Cite as

A cognitive learning perspective on women becoming expert managers

  • Dianne D. Horgan
Full Articles

Abstract

Despite recent gains, women still face the “glass ceiling”—an invisible barrier that blocks their entry into top executive positions. Explanations for women's lack of success range from blaming men for discrimination to blaming women themselves. Rather than blaming the people in organizations, it is useful to analyze the task facing women managers. I argue that understanding the inherent difficulties in women's work can provide a new perspective on why women have difficulty in achieving top positions. Recent work in cognitive psychology is helping us learn more about the processes involved in reaching high levels of performance. Using these theories and concepts to analyze the task facing women managers, we can begin to develop new ways to help women develop higher levels of managerial skill.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. (1985).Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Cole, J.R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science,Scientific American, 256, 119–125.Google Scholar
  3. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80–85.Google Scholar
  4. Dreyfus, H., and Dreyfus, S. (1986).Mind Over Machine. Macmillan: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, W. (1971). Bayesian and regression models in human information processing—a myopic perspective.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 6, 639–648.Google Scholar
  6. Einhorn, H.J., and Hogarth, R.M. (1978). Confidence in Judgment: Persistence of the Illusion of Validity,Psychological Review, 85, 395–416.Google Scholar
  7. Etaugh, C. & Brown, B. (1975). Perceiving the causes of success and failure of male and female performers.Developmental Psychology, 11, 103.Google Scholar
  8. Horgan, D. & Morgan, D. (in press). Chess expertise in children,Applied Cognitive Psychology.Google Scholar
  9. Horgan, D., Millis, K., & Neimeyer, R. (1989). Cognitive Reorganization and the Development of Chess Expertise,International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 15–36.Google Scholar
  10. Magargee, E. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 377–382.Google Scholar
  11. Morrison, A., White, R., & Van Velsor, E., (1987).Breaking through the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America's Largest Corporations? Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. Nisbett, R.E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., and Reed, H. (1976). Popular Induction: Information Is Not Necessarily Informative, in J.S. Carroll and J.W. Payne (Eds.),Cognition and Social Behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Schein, V. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 90–100.Google Scholar
  14. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgments Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  15. Special report on career women. (1986, March 24).The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  16. Wallach, M. & Kogan, N. (1959). Sex differences and judgment processes,Journal of Personality, 27, 555–564.Google Scholar
  17. Zikmund, B.B., (1988, September 1). The well-being of academic women is still being sabotaged—by colleagues, by students, and by themselves.The Chronicle of Higher Education, A44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dianne D. Horgan
    • 1
  1. 1.Memphis State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations