Self and other reported workplace traits: A communal gap of men across occupations

Abstract

There is general agreement in organizational research about the relevance of the big two set of traits in social psychology: communion or consideration of other people and agency or pursuit of the self. I argue that, whereas both dimensions play critical functions at work, men are still overwhelmingly limited in communion. Results of five studies with male and female employees and managers across settings ranging from social work to the bank industry support this prediction in relation to both self‐ratings and judgment of others and reveal that men are characterized with less communal traits by themselves and others. In contrast, women and men are perceived and perceive themselves as similar in agency, suggesting closing gender gaps in agentic traits. An analysis across occupational levels showed that sex differences in communion favoring women only disappeared at top managerial levels. Exploratory analyses of prescriptive traits (ideal characterizations) revealed more demanding expectations of communion for women than men, despite female employees' and managers' generally greater endorsement of these traits. Implications for organizations are discussed, underscoring the need to implement gender action focused on reducing male stereotyping and the communal gap, rather than increasing women's agency.

Editorial to Part I “Revisioning, Rethinking, Restructuring Gender at Work: Quo Vadis Gender Stereotypes?”

“…In Part I, we present studies showing that differences in gender stereotypes still exist (Gartzia, 2022), confirm disadvantages for women in male‐dominated roles and sectors (Henningsen et al, 2022) and when the employment sector is not specified (Gloor et al, 2022; Hernandez Bark et al, 2022), but also disadvantages for men in female‐dominated roles and sectors (Sczesny et al, 2022). In contrast to this general trend, one paper in Part II of this Special Issue found a preference for women over men as job candidates in their study (Niedlich et al, 2022; Study 1).…”

“…Second, gender has primarily been studied and perceived as a binary concept, which does not accurately reflect gender in today's world. Third, an increasingly diverse workforce highlights the importance of taking the intersections of various marginalized identities into account when In Part I, we present studies showing that differences in gender stereotypes still exist (Gartzia, 2022), confirm disadvantages for women in male-dominated roles and sectors (Henningsen et al, 2022) and when the employment sector is not specified (Gloor et al, 2022;Hernandez Bark et al, 2022), but also disadvantages for men in female-dominated roles and sectors (Sczesny et al, 2022). In contrast to this general trend, one paper in Part II of this Special Issue found a preference for women over men as job candidates in their study (Niedlich et al, 2022; Study 1).…”

“…Gartzia (2022) presents five studies examining perceptions of agency (i.e., being seen as competent and competitive) and communion (i.e., being seen as caring and warm) of women and men. In all studies, men were ascribed less communion than women—both by themselves and by others.…”

Editorial to Part II: Revisioning, Rethinking, Restructuring Gender at Work: Contributors to Gender‐Role Stereotyping

“…4.1 | Where to go from here? Avenues for future research Together, the studies presented in both parts of this Special Issue shed new light on gender stereotypes at work and show that these are persisting (e.g., Gartzia, 2022;Nett et al, 2022) but also raise hope that individuals can mitigate these (e.g., Gloor et al, 2022). Notably, several studies could not support (parts of) their assumptions, resulting in no differences in presumably stereotyped groups or even reverse effects (e.g., Klysing et al, 2022).…”

“…Building on the findings by Henningsen et al (2022, in Part I of this Special Issue), one way to do so could be to emphasize other men in such roles and align these with agentic career goals or, more generally, emphasize the agentic side in these roles. Such a balanced approach, targeting women and men, is particularly important as stereotypes of women have changed over the last decades and are assumed to continue to change in the future, whereas stereotypes of men have been relatively stable (Eagly et al, 2020; Lopez‐Zafra & Garcia‐Retamero, 2011; Wilde & Diekman, 2005; see also Gartzia, 2022, in Part I of this Special Issue).…”