Sex Roles, Vol. 10, No~ 7/8, 1984

If "Good Managers" Are Masculine, What Are "Bad Managers"? 1

Gary N. Powell University o f Connecticut

D. Anthony Butterfield University ofMassachusetts - Amherst

Little research has been conducted on ineffective behavior or "bad" charac- teristics o f managers as contrasted with effective behavior or "good" charac ~ teristics. This study examines the perceived characteristics o f bad managers as well as good managers. In contrast to a stereotypical view o f the good manager as masculine, bad managers were seen by business students as low in both masculinity and femininity, or in nonstereotypical terms. Results were not af- fected by the relative soeial desirability o f masculine and feminine characteristics.

In recent years, a great deal of attention has been given to sex-role stereotyping as it pertains to management. This has occurred because more women than ever before are managers or administrators- 27,4% in 1981 compared to 15.9% in 1970 (Employment and Training Report o f the President, 1982). In fact, the total number of women in these positions rose 139% between 1970 and 198 t, while the number of men managers and administrators rose only 20% during the same period. Yet most research on managers has been carried out with men in the leadership positions (Stogdill, 1974). Increased attention to sex-role stereo- typing has also occurred as a consequence of the widely recognized state of flux concerning contemporary sex roles (Hoffman, 1977; Ruble & Ruble, 1980).

Traditionally, men and the "masculine" characteristics typically associ- ated with men (i.e., self-reliant, independent, aggressive, dominating) have been more highly valued by society than have women and the "feminine" character-

1 This s tudy was supported by a grant f rom the University of Connect icut Research Founda- tion. An earlier version o f the article was presented at the l l t h Annual Meeting of the American Inst i tute for Decision Sciences, New Orleans, November 1979.

4"/7

0360-0025/84/0400-0477503,50/0 © 1984 Plenum Publishing Corporation

4"/8 Powell and Butterfield

istics typically associated with women (i.e., sympathetic, sensitive to the needs of others, gentle, yielding) (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosen- krantz, 1972). For example, Bowman, Worthy, and Greyser (1965) examined the reactions of a national sample of male and female (when they could be found) executives toward women managers. They found that most male execu- tives regarded women as "temperamentally unfit for management." Schein (1973, 1975) also reported that both female and male executives perceived men to fit a stereotype of a successful manager more closely than women.

Viewing the heightened awareness of sex roles in the 1970s, Massengill and DiMarco (1978) thought that attitudes of men and women in 1977 might have become less sterotypical over the intervening years since Schein's studies; however, they found that Schein's results were nearly exactly replicated. Powell and Butterfield (1979) similarly though enough social change had occurred to predict that undergraduate business students and M.B.A.s working in full-time jobs would describe good managers in androgynous (highly masculine and highly feminine) terms rather than only in masculine terms. Instead, their subjects saw good managers as predominantly masculine, just as Schein's subjects (who were actually managers) had seen successful managers. Despite evidence of the usefulness of consideration behaviors (Stogdill, 1974), which are more closely associated with a feminine than a masculine stereotype, such behaviors have not become part of the perceived good manager profile.

To understand better the meaning and value of the masculine stereotype for good managers, it might be helpful to know how people characterize bad managers. Most of us have had some experience with bad managers - maybe even more so than with good managers. Yet research on leadership has focused almost exclusively on effective behavior or good characteristics, so that we do not really know much about ineffective or bad leadership. Stogdill's review (1974) of over 3,000 books and articles related to leadership found that 10 different traits positively correlated with a person Occupying a position of leadership; however, few studies had even considered "negative" traits as a possible influence on leadership. Similarly, the bulk of research on leader behav- ior has focused on two dimensions-initiating structure and consideration- which generally have been positively correlated with leader effectiveness. Virtual- ly no attention has been paid to dimensions of behavior which might be positively correlated with leader ineffectiveness. Knowledge of the characteristics people ascribe to bad managers could, in addition to explicating the good manager stereotype, suggest some things people should avoid if they do not wish to be seen as bad managers.

Several different speculations may be made concerning the character- istics of bad managers. Although not an exhaustive list, the following are some possible alternatives:

1. Since the good manager is seen as possessing mostly masculine charac- teristics, the bad manager could be viewed as predominantly feminine in charac-

If "Good Managers" Me Masculine, What Are "Bad Managers"? 479

teristics. Although masculinity and femininity have been recently defined as conceptually independent dimensions of an individual's sex-role identity and also have been found to be empirically independent (Bern, 1974), they may not be independent of each other when applied in the managerial context.

2. The bad manager could be seen as low in masculine characteristics, with the amount of feminine characteristics possessed similar to that of the good manager. Such a finding would support the independence of masculinity and femininity and further suggest that masculine characteristics distinguish good from bad managers.

3. The bad manager could be described as lower in both masculine and feminine characteristics than the good manager. This result would support the value of both types of characteristics in managers, regardless of the relative amounts of each held by either good or bad managers.

4. The bad manager could be viewed as more masculine than the good manager. Bad managers would be seen as taking directive, controlling charac- teristics to an extreme, so that masculine would be synonymous with "macho."

5. Good and bad managers may be regarded as having essentially the same characteristics. Then situational contingencies might be more relevant in deter- mining the effectiveness of managers than any particular traits the managers may or may not possess.

The present study was designed to explore these speculations. It examined (1) how bad managers are seen in terms of sex-role stereotypes (i.e., propensity of masculine and feminine characteristics); and (2) how descriptions of bad managers compared with those of good managers. Because subjects' own sex and sex-role identity might influence their views of managers (Powell & Butter- field, 1979), these two factors were also examined.

METHOD

The sample was composed of 1,368 students in introductory management courses at two New England universities. Their median age was 20 years, and 62% were male. Data were collected between Pall 1977 and fall 1978.

Each individual completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bern, 1974, 1977) both for him/herself and for either a good or bad manager. The BSRI contains 20 items characteristic of the masculine sex-role stereotype (e.g., self-reliant, defends own beliefs, ambitious), 20 items characteristic of the feminine sex-role stereotype (e.g., sympathetic, yielding, shy), and 20 items not associated exclusively with either stereotype (e.g., helpful, conscientious, con- ceited). Items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from "never or almost never true" (1) to "always or almost always true" (7).

A questionnaire containing the two BSRIs was administered during the first week of each course. It was introduced as an instrument intended to solicit

480 Poweil and Butterfield

Table I. Individuals' Sex-Role Identity Groups

Masculinity self-score

Below median Above median

Femininity self-score Above med ian F e m i n i n e Androgynous Below median Undifferentiated Masculinine

views on management before studentswere influenced by the course. All students in each course completed either the bad manager (N = 741) or good manager (N = 627) version.

Following the procedure used by Powell and Butterfietd (1979), mascu- linity and femininity "self-scores" were calculated for each individual as the average of scores on the masculine and feminine items in his/her self-description. The median masculinity and femininity self-scores were then calculated for the entire sample combined, with females weighted more heavily than males to equalize their numbers statistically, as recommended by Bern and Watson (1976). Weighted median self-scores differed from unweighted median self-scores by only .05, rendering the effect of the weighting on later analysis negligible. Each individual was then classified into one of the sex-role identity groups, or "self-groups," shown in Table I.

Masculinity and femininity "manager scores" (good or bad) were calcu- lated from each individual's description of a good or bad manager using the same procedure as for the self-description. The good manager or bad manager descriptions were classified as androgynous, masculine, feminine, or undif- ferentiated according to the subjects' median masculinity and femininity self- scores (i.e., relative to the same medians used to classify individuals into self- groups) to allow direct comparison of how individuals described a good or bad manager and how they described themselves. This classification was called each individual's "manager group" (good or bad).

RESULTS

Self-Descriptions

Before the descriptions of bad and good managers were analyzed, indi- viduals' self-descriptions were examined as a validity check on the BSRI. AS sex-role stereotypes would predict, males were significantly higher on mas- culinity (X = 5.26) than femininity (X = 4.52), and females were significantly

If "Good Managers" Are Masculine, What Are "Bad Managers"? 481

Table I1. Percentage of Subjects in Manager Group Classifications a

Bad manager Good manager group group

(N = 741) (N = 627)

Androgynous (8) 1.1 (81) 12.9 Masculine (34) 4.6 (469) 74.8 Feminine (8) 1.1 (4) .6 Undifferentiated (691) 93.2 (73) 11.7

aNs are shown in parentheses. X 2 (3) = 934.29, p < .001.

lower on masculinity (X = 4.86) than femininity ()( = 5.50). Also, males were significantly higher on masculinity and significantly lower on femininity than females (p < .001 in all cases).

Weighted median self-scores for all subjects were 5.09 for masculinity and 4.79 for femininity.

Bad Manager and Good Manager Descriptions

Table II reports descriptions of a bad manager as undifferentiated in sex- role identiy for over 90% of subjects. Bad manager scores were generally low: Mean scores were 2.93 for masculinity and 3.14 for femininity on a scale with 4 as the midpoint (see Table III), Although the difference was slight, the bad manager was seen in significantly more feminine than masculine terms. As the high proportion of undifferentiated bad manager group classifications reflects, individuals perceived the bad manager to be less masculine and less feminine than themselves.

The good manager was described as masculine in sex-role identity by 75% of subjects (see Table II) and as significantly higher in masculinity than femininity overall (see Table Ill). Individuals perceived the good manager to be more masculine and less feminine than themselves. The bad manager was seen as significantly lower on both masculinity and femininity scores than the good manager (see Table III), however, the difference between bad manager scores and good manager scores was larger for masculinity (Xdiff = 2.72) than femininity (Xdiff = 1.03). Bad manager scores also had higher standard devia- tions than good manager scores, especially on masculinity.

Results were essentially the same for males and females considered sepa- rately. Similar proportions of males and females perceived the bad manager as undifferentiated and the good manager as masculine. Subjects' own sex-role identity had some effect on the results, The proportion of individuals who classified the bad manager as undifferentiated was above 90N in each self-group.

482 Powell and Butterfield

Table IlL Sex-Role Identity Scoresa

Masculinity Femininity

Mean SD Mean SD t b

Subjects completing bad manager version (N = 741)

Bad manager score 2.93 Self-score 5.14

t b 42.67

Subjects completing good manager version (N = 627)

Good-manager score 5.65 Self-score 5.07

t c 18.88

All subjects (N = 1368) Difference between bad

manager score and good manager score

t d 52.13

1.19 3.14 .70 5.43 .67 4.74 .57 12.21

43,92

.60 4,17 .60

.68 4.66 .55 18.84

28.05

t ¢

54.87 11.22

aTwo-tailedttests were performed;alltvalues weresignificantatthe,0011evel. bdf= 740. cdf= 626. ddf= 1366.

However, the propor t ion of individuals who described the good manager as masculine ranged from a low of 67% for the androgynous self-group to a high of 85% for the masculine self-group. As for the Powell and Butterfield (1979) technique, individuals tended to describe a good manager in the same sex-role terms as themselves. Nonetheless, the majori ty of subjects in each self-group still described the good manager as masculine.

DISCUSSION

If "good managers" are masculine, what are "bad managers"? The an- swer suggested by this study is, not masculine, not feminine, and certainly not androgynous. Instead, the bad manager was seen as undifferentiated, or low in both masculinity and femininity.

Sex-role stereotypes seemed to apply less to descriptions of the bad manager than to descriptions of the good manager. There was also less agree- ment on the descriptions: Standard deviations were higher for bad managers than for good managers, particularly on masculinity. Rather than having a preponderance of masculine or feminine characteristics, the bad manager was described as having a balance (and limited amount) of both. These results

If "Good Managers" Are Masculine, What Are "Bad Managers"? 483

extend the findings of Powell and Butterfield (1979), who looked only at descriptions of good managers. In the present study, good managers were not described as androgynous (they were masculine, as before), but bad managers were viewed as the opposite of androgynous. Similar to the Powell and Butter- field (1979) findings for good managers, sex of subject had little effect on de- scriptions of bad managers. Subjects' sex-role identity had less of an effect on descriptions of bad managers than on descriptions of good managers.

These results could be affected by the social desirability of the different characteristics and by subjects' tendencies to see themselves in socially desirable terms. That is, masculine characteristics could be considered to be more socially desirable than feminine characteristics (as much research has claimed; cf. Brover- man et al., 1972). Thus, good managers are described as higher in masculinity than femininity, and bad managers are described in more balanced terms, and differ from good managers more in masculinity than femininity. Fortunately, the 20 neutral (10 positive and 10 negative) items on the BSRI (Bern, 1974) serve as an index of social desirability, which enabled us to examine such specula- tions. As expected, the good manager was seen in far more socially desirable terms (JY = 5.70) than the bad manager (J( = 2.72) (p < .001). Subjects' social desirability scores were positively correlated with both masculinity (r = .26) and femininity (r = .30) self-scores (p < .001). Also, all good manager and bad manager scores were positively correlated with the social desirability score for the description of the manager (rs ranged from .29 to .64;p < .001 in all cases). Since masculinity and femininity did not differ in their relationships with social desirability scores, the relative amounts of masculine and feminine charac- teristics attributed to either the good or bad manager did not appear to be af- fected by social desirability considerations.

In summary, we have added to our understanding of the profile of the good manager by examining the profile of the bad manager. The results sug- gest that sex-role stereotypes are less important in accounting for perceived ideal managerial characteristics than previously believed. Idealized good managers had high scores on both masculinity and femininity, while idealized bad managers had low scores. Although good and bad manager profiles differed more in masculinity than in femininity scores, both differences were highly significant. However, subjects described both the good and bad manager as less feminine than themselves, indicating that there may still be some tendency for individuals to devalue feminine characteristics when considering managers in general.

Perhaps interpretation of previous findings should not have focused on the difference between the amounts of masculine and feminine characteristics held desirable, but on the relatively high desirability of both sets of charac- teristics. Osborn and Vicars (1976) observed that sex-role stereotypes have been found to apply to management more in laboratory studies than in field studies. This finding may have been due to how the laboratory studies were conducted, as examination of the difference between profiles of the good and bad manager

484 Powell and Butterfield

in the present s tudy suggests. It is t ime for sex-role s tereotypes to catch up with

the reality o f the workplace.

R E F E R E N C E S

Bern, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162.

Bern, S. L. On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 196-205.

Bern, S,, & Watson, C. Scoring packet: Bern Sex Role Inventory. Unpublished document, Standord University, 1976.

Bowman, G. W., Worthy, N. G. & Greyser, S. A. Are women executives people? Harvard Business Review, 1965, 43, 52-67, 166d78.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R:, Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal o¢ Social Issues, 1972, 28, 5%78.

Employment and Training Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.

Hoffman, L W. Changes in family roles, socialization, and sex differences. American Psy- chologist, 1977, 32, 644-657.

Massengill, D., & DiMarco, N. Sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: A current replication. Proceedings: A nnualMeeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, August 1978.

Osborn, R. N., & Vicars, W. M. Sex stereotypes: An artifact in leader behavior and sub- ordinate satisfaction analysis? Academy of Ma~agement Journal, 1976, 19, 439-449.

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. The "good manager": Masculine or androgynous'? Academy oj'Management Journal, 1979, 22, 395-403.

Ruble, D. N., & Ruble, T. L. Sex stereotypes. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), h~ the eye of the be- holder." Contemporary issues in stereotyping. New York: Holt, 1980.

Schein, V. E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 5 7, 95-100.

Schein, V. E. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management charac- teristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 340-344.

Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press, 1974.