Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Men and Women Supervisors' Job Responsibility, Job Satisfaction, and Employee Monitoring

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A gender-based job responsibility framework emphasizing job satisfaction and employee monitoring is presented in this study and is tested using a national sample of 2,607 supervisors representing a variety of industries. Overall, the path analysis indicated that male managers reported greater perceived responsibility than did female managers. Findings also indicated that perceived responsibility was positively related to both job satisfaction and employee monitoring. The limitations of the study are highlighted, and the managerial implications of the results and suggestions for future research are presented.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Ackah, C., Heaton, N., & McWhinney, G. (1999). Women in management: The case of MBA graduates. Women in Management Review, 14, 136-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. D., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1995). Patriarchal pressures: An exploration of organizational processes that exacerbate and erode gender earnings inequality. Work and Occupations, 22, 328-356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andorka, F. N., Jr. (1998).Women gaining leadership roles. Hotel and Motel Management, 213, 54, 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, G. (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and performance appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job satisfaction. Human Relations, 52, 1099-1113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booker, M. J. (1998). Can sexual harassment be salvaged? Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1171-1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, T. (1998). How equal is equal pay? Management Review, 87, 59-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, T. W. (1999). Engaging the self in the field: Testing the triangle model of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 696-706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broder, I. E. (1993). Professional achievements and gender differences among academic economists. Economic Inquiry, 31, 116-127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cann, A., & Siegfried, W.D. (1987). Sex stereotypes and the leadership role. Sex Roles, 17, 401-408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, L., & Chang-McBride, C. (1997). Self-and peer-ratings of female and male roles and attributes. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 527-529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. C., Carafella, R. S., & Ingram, P. B. (1998). Leadership at the glass ceiling:Women's experience of mid-management roles. Initiatives, 58, 59-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Carsky, M. (1996). Understanding the market of women-owned small businesses. Journal of Retail Banking Services, 18, 47-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. L., & Lewis, S. (1995). Working together: Men and women in organizations. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 16, 29-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, V. W. (1997). Homophily or the Queen Bee Syndrome: Female evaluation of female leadership. Small Group Research, 28, 483-499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13, 8-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. (1999). Entrepreneurial ventures as an avenue to the top? Assessing the advancement of female CEOs and directors in the Inc. 100. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4, 19-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daley, D. M., & Naff, K. C. (1998). Gender differences and managerial competencies: Federal supervisor perceptions of the job of management. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 41-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K. (1979). Self-evaluation of male and female managers. Journal of Sex Roles, 5, 571-580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Farris, E. (1977). Attributing causes for one's own performance: The effects of sex, norms, and outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 59-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, W. W., & Lyson, T. A. (1988). High tech, low tech, no tech. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M. A., & Green, C. A. (1982). Traditional or reverse sex discrimination? A case study of a large public university. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 35, 550-564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, L. M., & Pullins, E. B. (1998). Peer mentoring in the industrial sales force: An exploratory investigation ofmenandwomenin developmental relationships. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, 18, 89-103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, Y. (1991). Meta-analytic comparison of the Job Diagnostic Survey and Job Characteristic Inventory as correlates of satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 690-697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristic model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 61-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Cohen, G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human Relations, 49, 791-813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammick, M., & Acker, S. (1998). Undergraduate research supervision: A gender analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 335-347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (1997). Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of sex stereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 877-889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422-447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanquart-Barone, S., & Sekaran, U. (1994). Effects of supervisor's gender on American women's trust. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 253-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. (1992). Does job re-design theory explain job re-design outcomes? Human Relations, 45, 753-774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1335-1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutson, B. J., & Schmidgall, R. S. (1999). Dimensions of the glass ceiling in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40, 64-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korabik, K., & Rosin, H.M. (1995). The impact of children onwomenmanagers' career behavior and organizational commitment. Human Resource Management, 34, 513-528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, G. B., & Park, K. (1989). Turnover rates in federal white-collar employment: Are women more likely to quit than men? American Review of Public Administration, 19, 13-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relations, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407-416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Marongiu, S., & Ekehammar, B. (1999). Internal and external influences on women's and men's entry into management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 421-433.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune, J. C. (2000). In the company of women. Management Review, 89, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlashan, K. E., Wright, P. M., & McCormick, B. (1995). Preferential selection and stereotypes: Effects on evaluation of female leader performance, subordinate goal commitment, and task performance. Sex Roles, 33, 669-686.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShulskis, E. (1996). Women outscore men in management and leadership skills. HRMagazine, 41, 14-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, B. S. (1997). Women make better managers. Industry Week, 246, 17-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naff, K. C. (1995). Subjective vs. objective discrimination in government: Adding to the picture of barriers to the advancement of women. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 535-555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neider, L. (1987). A preliminary investigation of female entrepreneurs in Florida. Journal of Small Business Management, 25, 22-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumark, D., & McLennan, M. (1995). Sex discrimination and women's labor market outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 713-740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlott, P., Ruderman, M., & McCauley, C. (1994). Gender differences in managers' development job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 46-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, C. L., & Todor, W. D. (1993). Attitudes toward women as managers: Still the same. Business Horizons, 36, 12-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S., & Wall, T. (1998). Job and wok design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Ross, J. (1990). Gender-based wage differences: The effects of organizational context. Work and Occupations, 17, 55-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, L. L. (1998). Devaluing women and minorities: The effects of race/ethnic and sex composition of occupations on wage levels. Work and Occupations, 25, 511-536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B., & Padavic, I. (1994). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, P. (1995). Gender differences in managers' attributions for successful work performance. Women in Management Review, 10, 26-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozier, C. (1996). Gender differences in managerial characteristics in a female-dominated health profession. Health Care Supervisor, 14, 57-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozier, C., & Hersh-Cochran, M. (1996). Gender differences in managerial characteristics in a female-dominated health profession. Health Care Supervisor, 14, 57-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagie, A. (1994). Participation in decision making and performance: A moderator analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 227-246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (2000). Participation and empowerment in organizations: Modeling, effectiveness, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, 36, 577-600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicherman, N. (1996). Gender differences in departures from a large firm. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49, 484-505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L., & Hunt, J. (1998). The effect of contextual factors in organizational responses to women's issues and advancement. International Journal of Management, 15, 357-363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonetti, J. L., Ariss, S., & Martinez, J. (1999). Through the top with mentoring. Business Horizons, 42, 56-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snavely, B. K. (1993). Managing conflict over the perceived progress of working women. Business Horizons, 36, 17-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 46-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, P. (1992).What does the glass ceiling cost you? Personnel Journal, 71, 70-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C. D., & Moore, K. K. (1985). Executive women: Twenty years later. Harvard Business Review, 85, 42-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, T. A. (1989). Women and minority workers in the new economy. Work and Occupations, 16, 393-415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmud, I., & Izraeli, D. N. (1999). The relationship between gender and performance issues of concern to directors: Correlates or institution? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 459-474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S. (2001). A path analysis of gender, race, and job complexity as determinants of intention to look for work. Employee Relations, 23, 130-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312-330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. A., III, & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 527-541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability of a single-item measure. Psychological Reports, 78, 631-634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, C. J. (1998). Race and gender wage gaps in the market for recent college graduates. Industrial Relations, 37, 67-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Gordon, J. R. (2000). Strengthening human resource strategies: Insights from the experiences of midcareer professional women. Human Resource Planning, 23, 26-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Withiam, G. (1997). Discrimination continues. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 38, 9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wyoming, USA;

    Sean R. Valentine

Authors
  1. Sean R. Valentine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean R. Valentine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Valentine, S.R. Men and Women Supervisors' Job Responsibility, Job Satisfaction, and Employee Monitoring. Sex Roles 45, 179–197 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013549710711

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013549710711

Keywords

Search

Navigation