Development and Validation of the Masculinity Contest Culture Scale

Abstract

We developed and validated a 20‐item Masculinity Contest Culture (MCC) scale as a workplace culture assessment. Participants indicated agreement or disagreement with workplace norm statements beginning with a common stem (“In my work environment…”). Exploratory (Study 1) and confirmatory (Study 2) factor analyses yielded four MCC subfactors: Show No Weakness, Strength and Stamina, Put Work First, and Dog Eat Dog. CFA and reliability analyses supported a second‐order factor (with four subfactors), consistent with an overarching (though multifaceted) masculinity contest construct. Across two studies in which individuals rated their work environments, the MCC correlated with: (a) negative organizational dynamics (e.g., poor culture and toxic leadership), (b) dominative coworker behaviors (e.g., bullying and harassment), (d) negative individual work attitudes (e.g., burnout, turnover intentions), and (e) poor personal well‐being. Results were generally consistent across studies and participant sex, suggesting that masculinity contest norms harm organizations and the men and women within them.

Toxic Leadership and the Masculinity Contest Culture: How “Win or Die” Cultures Breed Abusive Leadership

“…Considering that the toxic leadership measure and masculinity contest culture measure had high correlations, we also examined a four‐factor model with the indicators for toxic leadership and MCC all loaded onto one common factor. Consistent with Glick et al.’s () discriminant validity findings, our results supported that the toxic leadership and masculinity contest culture scales assess distinct constructs. Specifically, the four‐factor model fit the data significantly worse than the five‐factor model, χ 2 (623, N = 1,000) = 4366.64, p < .01; CFI = .88, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .07; ∆χ 2 (∆ df = 4) = 2346.85, p < .01.…”

“…As one of the first empirical studies to confirm the basic tenets of the masculinity contest culture construct, our findings are noteworthy and generally consistent with related studies reported in this special issue documenting the mostly negative outcomes associated with masculinity contest cultures (Glick et al., ; Rawski & Workman‐Stark, ).…”

“…We used the short, eight‐item version of the Masculinity Contest Culture (MCC) scale (Glick et al., ). Participants were instructed: “We are interested in the values and norms people experience in their work environments.…”

“…Initial research shows that masculinity contest cultures correlate with a host of negative outcomes, ranging from organizational‐level perceptions and behaviors (e.g., lower psychological safety, more bullying and harassment) to individual‐level attitudes and outcomes (e.g., burnout, turnover intentions) (Glick, Berdahl, & Alonso, ; Rawski & Workman‐Stark, ). However, much remains unknown about the workplace characteristics that exacerbate and attenuate masculinity contest cultures’ effects on individuals and the organizations who employ them.…”

“…As the masculinity contest culture construct is new, there is little direct empirical research on its relationship to other management constructs and its implications for employees and the organizations for which they work. Initial empirical work on the masculinity contest culture construct indicates that masculinity contest cultures are associated with numerous harmful workplace outcomes such as bullying, increased sexual harassment, burnout, and decreased employee well‐being (Glick et al., ). Theoretical support for the harmful effects of masculinity contest cultures also can be extrapolated from the vast body of literature on hegemonic masculinity, an honored form of masculinity that stipulates competition, an inability to express emotions other than anger, an unwillingness to admit weakness, and the devaluation of women and subordinate forms of masculinity.…”