APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: A N INTERNATlONAL REVIEW, 1988. 37 (2) 201-212

Personality and Biographical Differences between Male and Female Managers in the United States

and India

Richard N. Ottaway Fairleigh Dickinson University, U S . A

Deepti Bhatnagar Indian Institute o/ Management. Ahmeahbad

Cette recherche fut faite sur deux khantillons compoks dc cadres des deux sexes poursuivant dcs etudes a I'lnstitut lndien de Management ou dans une "business school" americainc. On a recueilli des informations sur la personnal- ite et la biographic dcs sujets. Elks ont ete soumisa a une analyse de variance pour eprouver I 'hypothk selon laquelle les cadres feminins americains sont plus prwhes de leurs collegues masculins (quant a leur penonnalite, leur salairc et leur statut professionnel) que ne le sont les cadres indiens masculins et fkninins. Pour ce qui est de la penonnalite, la fernma dcs deux pays w n t plus cxigeantes que les hommes et davantage victimes de codi t s . La Americaincs sont aussi plus naives. Les elements biographiques rnontrent quc les cadres des deux x x e s ne different pas significativernent quant au nivcau hierarchique, au nombre de subordonnb ou a I'importance du budget m i s a leur disposition. Les femmes w n t plus instruitcs, mais gagnent sigruficativement moins. Le cadre americain g a p e 41,8 O/O de plus que la femme, mais en Inde I'homme ne g a p e que 8.7 O/O de plus que sa collegue.

This study was conducted on a sample of male and female managers studying at the Indian Institute of Management and a sample of male and female managers studyng a t an American business school. Personality data and biographical characteristics were collected. They were analysed by an ANOVA to test the hypothesis that American fernale managers are nearer in personality, salary, and job status to American managers than the Indian male and female managers. From the personality data we found that the females in both countries are more hard-driving and conflicted than the males. The American female manager is also more naive. The biographical data indicate that the male and female managers d o not differ significantly on job level, number of

Requests for reprints should be sent to k c h a r d N . Otcaway. Fairleigh D~ckinson University. Madison, N.J. 07940. U.S.A. The authors express their spmal appreciation to Professor RcnC Cordcro and Linda Teqe.cn. Graduate Fellow.

0 1988 International Association of Applied Psychology

202 OlTAWAY AND BHATNAGAR

subordinates, or size of budget controlled. The females are better educated and earn significantly less. Furthermore, the American male manager earns 41.8% more than the female and in India the male earns 8.7% more than the female.

I NTR 0 D U CTI 0 N

The number of women entering the workforce is steadily increasing. A large portion of them enter traditional female jobs. However, in recent years many have been entering management positions, mostly at middle management levels. Recent reports indicate that Amencan female managers lag behind their male counterparts in salary (1985 survey, 1985). There is also evidence that the salaries of European women are closer to (and gaining more rapidly on) men’s salaries than are American women’s (Hewlett, 1986).

No data about female managers are available from Indian samples. We conducted a study using Indian and American samples of male and female managers. We collected data on personality and biographical characteristics (including salary) to test the hypothesis that American female managers are less different from American male managers than Indian male and female managers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sex Differences

Studies on sex differences in personality characteristics have shown mixed results. Broveman et al. (1972) suggest that research evidence can substan- tiate or disprove various stereotypes about the sex-related distribution of attributes and characteristics. But the results of such studies are often conflicting. Maccoby and Jacklin (l974), based on their review of research, concluded that men are indeed more aggressive than women in a wide vafjety of situations. Steinberg and Shapiro (1982) found that male and female M.B.A. students did not differ on traditional aspects of personality as measured by Cattell’s 16PF, the California Personality Inventory (C.P.I.), or the Rathus Assertive Inventory. However, on the C.P.I. female M.B.A. students scored higher than males on “masculine traits” and the males scored higher than the females on “feminine traits”.

A number of studies on competitiveness show no sex ddferences: among them, Komorita and Mechling (1967) and Speer (1972) in laboratory situations. Nisbett and Gordon (1967), in their study on susceptibility to social influence, did not 6nd any s ip f i can t ditferences by sex. Eagly and Cadi (198 I ) , on the other hand, reported a significant overall sex difference in influenceability, as did Freedman, Carlsmith, and Sears (1970). Kahn, Hottes and Davis (1971) found men to be more competitive, and Cook et al. (1970)

MALE AND FEMALE MANAGERS 203

found men to be less compliant than women. Hollander, Julian, and Haaland (1965) found women to be significantly higher in conformity than men. Eagly (1983) contends that the small sex differences reported from small group interaction situations in laboratory studies can indeed emerge as significant if results testing the same hypothesis can be aggregated and meta-analysed. Some researchers (Carlson & Carlson, 1960; Maccoby, 1966) believe that potential sex differences are omnipresent but are often ignored in studies.

Males have been found to have higher levels of selfconfidence than females when asking for expectations of success (Crandell, Note I). Gener- ally, females have been found to differ significantly from men on anxiety level. Block (1976) found them to be more fearful, timid, and anxious than males. However, the majority of these studies have been based on self-reports and may simply indicate that women are more willing to admit to anxieties than men (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Dominance is another characteristic which frequently yields sex differences, with males being found more dominant than females (Hyde, 1985). But Henley (1973) found dominance to be related to status. These studies investigate sex differences in the general population.

Sex Differences in Managers

A more focused area of enquiry can be the differences in characteristics between men and women in managerial and leadership positions. Some researchers have investigated the role of stereotyping in this situation. Schein (1973) found that male middle managers perceived successful middle managers as having personality characteristics more similar to men in general than to women in general. A follow-up study (Schein, 1975) produced similar results using female managers who rated successful middle managers as more similar to men than to women. Powell and Butterfield (1979) also found that good managers were described in masculine terms. Massengil and DiMarco (1 979) found men and managers perceived as more similar than either men and women or women and managers.

Roussell (1974), in a study of high school departmental heads, found no significant sex differences in aggressiveness, suggestibility, professional knowledge, and sense of power. In their study of professionals in scientific disciplines, Graddick and Farr (1983) did not find any significant differences between men and women in job involvement and professional activities although there were differences in their level of organisational commitment. Donnell and Hall (1980), in their examination of five dimensions of manager- ial achievement, found no significant differences between American male and female managers. Hyde (1985) confirms that various studies have found few, if any, gender differences.

In a study of male and female adrmnistrators, Strache (Note 2) compared

204 OlTAWAY AND BHATNAGAR

respondents' scores on five managerially relevant traits from the Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire: namely decisiveness, objectivity, emotional stability, warm-heartedness, and passivity. Disconfirming the popular conception of women as being more warm and passive, women respondents scored as significantly less warm-hearted, less passive, and more objective than their male counterparts. However, Broverman et a]. (1972) report that supervisors' evaluations of subordinates conformed to the common stereotype of men being higher on the competency-related traits, and women on the expressiveness-related traits. Due to the conflicting nature of the results, these studies indicate the need for much more research on sex differences (Lanvood & Powell, 1981).

Sex Differences in Cross-cultural Studies

All the studies cited previously were conducted in a western setting. S. B. G. Eysenck has conducted some 25 cross-cultural studies to validate the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), such as Perera and Eysenck (1 984) for Sri Lanka. These general populations are used to try to show whether subjects from different cultures have the same personality factors measured by this test. Bijnen, Van Der Net, and Poort- inga ( 1 986) analysed a number of these studies. They conclude that there is sufficient evidence to question the Eysenck findings that personality traits will remain consistent across culture lines. All of this is to say that cross- cultural personality studes is in the early stages of development and we must proceed with caution. Crosscultural studies of male and female managers appear to be lachng: this paper provides such a study.

RESEARCH METHOD

Data were collected from two samples of managers. One sample was students attending management development courses at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (n = 11 l), and the other was students attending Masters of Business Administration courses at an American business school (n= 131).

The samples were selected by four criteria. First, the subjects had to be on a management education programme. This gives a select group which is motivated and representing the best of management populations. Second, we wanted the groups to be similar in age. The Indian sample has an average age of 36.83 1 , ranging from 23 to 66 with a mode of 35 and median of 35. The American group has an average age of 34.623 with a range of 22 to 58 and a mode of 35 and median of 34. Gender mix was the third criterion. The American sample is 67.9% male and 32.1% female. The Indian sample is 54.1% male and 45.9% female. And fourth, all the members of the samples had to have answered both instruments.

MALE AND FEMALE MANAGERS 205

Two questionnaires were used to collect the data. Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970) was used to collect data on personality because it is widely used and respected as a research instrument. Hui and Triandis (1985) review a number of research strategies for crosscultural studies. They suggest that the direct comparison approach (using the same instrument in both cultures) is the most popular. We used the direct comparison approach in this study with the Hindi translation for the Indian sample. Kapoor (1965) reports that this version is “a valid tool for assessing the individual’s personality”. At the time of analysis the normative tables for India were not available to us so we used the U.S. table for males and females aged 25-30. We have found no reports of cross-cultural studies of male and female managers using the 16PF.

The factors are factorally based rather than measuring variance from an idealised personality. A concise description of the 16 factors measured by this instrument is: A, reserved to outgoing; B, concrete thinking to abstract thinking; C, emotionally unstable to stable; E, submissive to dominant; F, sober to enthusiastic; G, rule breaking to rule keeping; H, shy to socially bold; I, tough-minded to tender-minded; L, trusting to suspicious; M, practical to imaginative; N, naive to shrewd; 0, self-assured to apprehensive; 41 , conservative to experimenting; 4 2 , grouporiented to self-sufficient; 43 , undisciplined to controlled; and Q4, relaxed to tense (Cattell et al., 1970).

The second questionnaire was a biographical questionnaire designed for this research. It contained 15 questions on personal and work-related data. We designed t h i s questionnaire to collect data that would indicate dserences or similarities in, for example, income, job level, number of subordinates, and educational level. Each subject was presented both questionnaires in a controlled situation. The data were analysed by ANOVA by sex and by country; 1-tests and statistical analyses were run for comparisons within countries.

FINDINGS

Personality Factors

When comparing the personality factors in the two samples by country and sex using the ANOVA, the following differences were found:

Factor A . The samples are significantly different by country (0.000). The American men (6.78) and women (6.45) are more outgoing and warm- hearted than Indian men (5.25) and women (4.82).

Factor B. The samples are significantly different by country (O.OO0). The American men (6.54) and women (6.81) are more abstract-thinking than the Indian men (5.73) and women (5.35).

Factor C. The samples are significantly different by country (0.001). The

206 O ~ A W A Y AND BHATNAGAR

American men (6.75) and women (6.45) are more emotionally stable than Indian men (6.05) and women (5.31). Difference by sex approaches signific- ance (0.061) with the women being less emotionally stable.

Factor E. The samples are significantly different by country (0.0oO). The American men (6.66) and women (7.05) are more dominant than the Indian men (5.82) and women (5.86).

Factor F. The samples are significantly different by country (0.000). The American men (5.44) and women (5.98) are more enthusiastic than Indian men (4.32) and women (4.33).

Factor G. The samples are significantly different by sex (0.00 1). The Indian women (5.47) and American women (4.76) are more rule-breaking than the Indian men (6.13) and American men (5.96).

Factor I . The samples are significantly different by sex (0.001). The American women (6.26) and Indian women (5.69) are more tender-minded than the American men (5.07) and Indian men (5.43). There is a significant interaction effect (0.035) due to the fact that the American women managers are much more tender-minded than American males while the Indian males and females are very close.

Factor L. The samples are significantly different by sex (0.029) and country (0.002). The Indian men (5.50) and women (6.10) are more suspicious than the American men (4.49) and women (5.29). Women in both countries are more suspicious than the men.

Factor N . The samples are significantly different by sex (0.027) and approach significance by country (0.056). The Indian men (6.05) and women (6.10) are more shrewd than the American men (6.04) and women (4.88). The women are significantly different from the men. The Indian women are more shrewd than Indian men and American women are less shrewd than American men, resulting in a signficant interaction effect (0.019).

Factor 0. The samples are significantly different by sex (0.004). The Indian women (5.55) and American women (5.50) are more apprehensive than the American men (4.71) and Indian men (4.95).

Factor Q l . The samples are significantly different by country (0.008). The American men (5.99) and women (6.52) are more experimenting than the Indian men (5.67) and women (5.35).

Factor Q2. The samples are significantly different by country (0.003). The Indian men (6.53) and women (6.57) are more group-oriented than the American men (5.74) and women (6. lo).

Facror Q3. The samples are significantly different by country (0.001). The American men (6.36) and women (5.93) are more controlled than Indian men (5.43) and women (5.10).

Factor Q4. The samples are significantly different by sex (0.050). The American (5.88) and Indian (5.71) women are more tense than the American (5.10) and Indian (5.43) men.

MALE AND FEMALE MANAGERS 207

Biographical Characteristics

When comparing the biographical characteristics of the two samples by country and by sex using the ANOVA, the following differences were found:

Age. The samples are significantly different by country (0.001) and sex (0.000). The Indian men (40.20) and women (34.02) are older than the American men (35.35) and women (33.02). The women are younger than the men.

Job level. The samples are significantly different by country (0.004). The American men (6.02) and women (7.41) are in staff positions more frequently than the Indian men (4.03) and women (4.14).

Subordinates. The samples are significantly different by country (O.OO0). The Indian men (4.52) and women (3.96) have more subordinates reporting to them than American men (3.59) and women (3.40) have.

Budgets. The samples are significantly different by country (O.OO0). The American men (5.51) and women (5.00) have larger budgets than Indian men (2.40) and women (1.88).

Job change. The samples do not significantly differ by country or sex. An interaction effect (0.033) results from the fact that American women in the sample change jobs much more frequently than the Indian women managers.

Education. The samples are significantly different by sex (0.011). The Indian women (3.51) and American women (3.34) are better educated (3 represents the bachelor degree) than the American men (3.30) and Indian men (3.02). The disparity of the educational levels of the Indian men and women results in a significant interaction effect (0.033).

Income. The samples are significantly different by sex (0.008) and country (0.000). The American men (S43,360) and women (S30,560) earn more money than the Indian men (S3350) and women (S3080). The women cam less than the men in both countries. A significant interaction effect (0.002) results from the large difference between American men and women along with the small difference between Indian men and women.

DISCUSSION

The analysis shows 10 differences by sex, at the 0.05 level of significance or better. They contribute to a picture of how female managers are different from male managers in these samples, regardless of country. These findings also show us how female managers compare to male managers in their own country, as well as to female managers in the other country.

Persona I ity

The data from several of the factors, (C, 0, and 44) tend to reinforce a

208 O ~ A W A Y A N D BHATNAGAR

stereotype of females. Factor C measures the ego strength of the personal- ity-capacity to withstand stress and emotional strain. Whereas all samples have relatively strong ego strength, the females have less. Low C people tend to cry more frequently. High 0, one of the factors measuring neuroticism, is often associated with setting high goals and worrying over not meeting them. A high Q4 factor, the other neurotic factor, is often associated with drive, push, and tension. The female managers in t h s study both turn neurosis in on the self (hgh 0) and push it out on others (high 44). This indicates a tense, hard-working, self-blaming person, who might break into tears from time to time.

The female managers appear to have some personality conflicts. For instance, they are low on G factor, the superego strength-the degree to which one has been conditioned to conform to the ideals of the group. People low on G tend to break rules more readily than high G people. They do not listen to others’ expectations of them. When low G is combined with high 0, this indicates a rule-breaker with guilt feelings. She knows the rules of the game but suffers from guilt at her lack of conformity. To quote Karson and O’Dell (1976, p. 50): “Consulting rooms of therapists are filled by such people.”

The description so far sounds very negative. But the positive side is that these personality types are highly prized in business. The female in these samples is driven by a need to succeed. Also, almost by definition, the first female managers will be rule breakers. The neurotic tendencies described here are signs of a productive individual. Thc fact that these tendencies @gh goals, self-blaming, and rule breaking) set up conflicts is of concern to the individual, but not usually to the employer.

Another personality characteristic of the female managers in these samples that tends to c o b the feminine stereotype is high I (tender-mindedness). Cattell et al. (1970, p. 83) state: “In various questionnaire studies, the premsic, I + person, has shown a fastidious dislike of ‘crude’ people and rough occupations; a romantic liking for travel and new experiences; a labile, somewhat unrealistic, imaginative, aesthetic mind; a love of dramatics; and a certain impracticality in general affairs.” High I people like nice things and enjoy drawing attention to themselves.

The high L (suspicious), technically called protension, is characteristic of the female manager sample and signifies projection and inner tension. The high L person can be contemptuous of the average and uninfluenced by the views of prominent people. These are inner-driven people who go against the odds and handle the associated anxieties by projecting their own tensions on to others.

The seventh personality characteristic is N factor, for which high is shrewd, good at judging the repercussions of behaviour. Low N people are naive, poor at seeing the implications of their behaviour, and tend to say

MALE AND FEMALE MANAGERS 209

what comes to mind, regardless of the circumstances. The females are different from the males in each sample: the Indian women are a little more shrewd than their male counterparts (already very shrewd) and the American women are much less shrewd than their male counterparts. Much of the success of a manager may be predicted by this characteristic-the ability to judge the situation for appropriate behaviour.

In summary, the seven personality characteristics in which the managers differed by sex indicate a female manager who is different from the male: a more hard-working, more driven, achever with little patience for less than that in others, although more conflicted and suffering from the experience. As for the female and male comparisons within each country, the American female manager appears to be more different from the American male manager than the Indian female manager appears to be from the Indian male manager. This is particularly evident in factors G (American female is much more rule breaking), I (American female is much more tender-minded), and N (American female is much more naive).

Biographical

Three biographical characteristics are significantly different by sex. Female managers are better educated than male managers in both countries. Female managers are younger than male managers. However, the Indian female manager is much younger-6 years on average as compared to an average of 2 years for the American female manager. Female managers earn less than male managers in both countries. However, the difference is much greater among the Americans: Indian male managers earn 8.7% more than females and American male managers 41 3% more than females on average.

The three biographical characteristics which show no sigmficance by sex add to the picture of the differences between male and female managers. No significance by sex is shown in job level, number of subordinates, and size of budget controlled. These data strengthen the comparability of the samples and heighten the significance of the difference in income. In effect the Indian female managers are far ahead of the American female managers in job status and income for their age.

The number of job changes is not significantly different by sex, but the significant interaction effect may illuminate the income differences. The interaction effect is due to the large number of job changes by American women and the small number among Indian women. For instance, 20.6% of the American women report four job changes in the past 5 years and only 5.9% of Indian females do. The American female manager moves between jobs more than the other three components of the samples.

Qualitative data on marital status is illuminating. The American female sample is 22.9% single, 54.3% mamed, 5.7% separated, 1 1.4% divorced, and

21 0 OnAWAY AND BHATNAGAR

5.7% cohabiting. The American male sample is 12.7% single, 83.1% mamed, 1.4% separated, 1.4% divorced, and 1.4% cohabiting. The Indian female sample is 39.2% single, 58.8% mamed, nil separated, 2.0% divorced, and nil cohabiting. The Indian male sample is 15.0% single, 83.3% mamed, nil separated, 1.7% divorced, and nil cohabiting. The American female manager appears to have the least stable marital situation of any component of the samples.

In summary, biographical characteristics indicate four things. The female manager is younger, better educated, and earns less than the male manager in both countries. Second, the Indian female manager is nearer to the Indian male manager in income than the American female manager. n r d , job status is not significantly different by sex. And fourth, the American female manager moves between jobs more and has the least stable marital situation of any component in the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we did not prove our hypothesis that American female managers are less different from American male managers than Indian male and female managers. But we may have found some of the reasons why they are not less different-personality differences. Both groups of female managers have the hard-driving personalities that enable them to break the barriers of the male-dominated management ranks. The naivety of the American female manager may be a deciding factor. Naive people, less able to say the right ttung at the right time or less able to see the shortcomings to career options, may be further behind in salary than shrewd managers with comparable job status.

Some of the biographical data support the role of naivety in the American female manager’s situation. On average she has the least stable marital situation and moves job the most frequently. These variables could influence each other. For example, an unstable marital situation may reduce effective- ness in making decisions about her career. Our findings suggest that further research is needed on the role of

personality in influencing the differences of income between American and female managers in other countries as compared to their male counterparts.

REFERENCES 1985 survey of women’s salaries. (1985. December.) Working Woman. Bijncn. E. J. , Van D e r NCL T .Z . J., & Poortinga. Y.H. (1986, March). On crosscultural

comparative studies with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Culrural Psychology. 1 7 ( 1 ) , 3 1 7 .

Block, J . H. (1976). Issues. problems and pitfalls in assessing sex ddkrcnas. Merrill-Palmer Quol:crly, 22. 283-308.

MALE A N D FEMALE MANAGERS 21 1

Broveman. I. K., Vopl. S. R., Brovcrman, D. M., Clarkson. F. E., & Rosencrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of S o c d Issues. 28 (2). 59-78.

Carlson, E. & Carlson, R (1960). Male and female subjects in personality m a r c h . Jounal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61,482483.

Cattell, R. B.. Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970, 1980 printing). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (I6PF). Windsor, krkshire: N.F.E.R. Publishng Co.. Ltd.

Cook, T. D.. &an. J. R.. Caldcr. B. J.. Frey. R.. Krovetz, M. L.. & Reisman, S. R. (1970). Demand characteristics and three conceptions of the frequently dcaivcd subject. Jownaf of Personality and Social Psychology. 14, 185-194.

Donncll. S.M. & Hall. J. (1980). Men and women as managers: A significant case of no significant differences. Organizational Dynamics, 8 (4). 60-77.

Eagly. A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist. 38(9), 971-981.

Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex diflerences in influenaability: A mcta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20.

Eysenck. H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). M ~ u a l o f t h e Eysenckpersonality quesfionnaire. S a n Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Fretdman, J. L., Carlsmith, J. M., & Sears, D. 0. (1970). Socialpsychology. Englewood ClifTs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Publishing Co.

Graddick. M. M. & Farr, L. (1983). Professionals in scientific disciplines: Sex-related differenas in work life commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (4). 641-645.

Henlcy, N. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic

Hewlett, S . A. (1986). A lesser Ige: The myth of women's lhrat ion in America. New York: William Morrow and Co.

Hollander, E. P., Julian, J . W., & Hadand, G. A. (1965). Conformity proass and prior group support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 852-858.

Hui, C. H. & Triandis, H. C. (1985, June). Management in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16 (2), 131-153.

Hydc. J. S. (1985). Hal/ the human experience: 73e psychology of women. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co.

Kahn. A., Hottcs, T.. & Davis, W. L. (1971). Cooperation and optimal raponding in the prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 17. 267-275.

Kapoor, S. D. (1965). Cross-validation of the Hindi version of the 16PF test (VKKJ). I n d m Journal of Psychology, 40 (3). I 15-1 20.

Karson, S. & O'DeU, J. W. (1976). A guide to the clinical use o f t h e 16PF. Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Komorita. S.S. & Mahling. J. (1967). Betrayal and reconciliation in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 349-353.

Lanvood. L. & Powell. G. N. (1981). Isn't it time we were moving on? Namsary future research on women in management. Group and Organization Studies. 6 ( I ) , 66-72.

Maccoby. E. (1966). The development of sex diferencer. London: Tavistock. Maccoby. E. & Jacklin, C. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, Wf.: Stanford

Massengd, D. & DiMarco, N. (1979). Sex role stereotypes and requisite management

Nisbett. R. E. & Gordon, A. (1967). Selfateem and susaptibility to social influence. J o d of

Pcrera. M. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1984. September). A cross-cultural study of personality: Sri

SOCLIY, 2, 92-93.

University Pms.

characteristics: A current replication. Sex Roles, 5 (9, 561-570.

Personality and Social Prychology, 5 , 268-276.

Lanka and England. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, I5 (3), 353-373.

21 2 OTTAWAY AND BHATNAGAR

Powell. G. N . & B u t t d c l d . D. A. (1979). "Tie good manager": Masculine or androgynous? The Acadcmy of Management J m l , 22 (2). 3 9 W 3 .

Roussell, C. (1974). Relationshp of sex of department head to department climate. Adminictru- rive Science Quurrerly, 19 (2). 21 1-220.

Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role s t e m t y p e s and requisite management characteristlcs. Journal oJ Applied Psychology, 57 (2). 95-100.

Schcin, V . E. (1975). The rclationshp between sex role stereotypes and requisite management charactemtics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (3). 340-344.

Speer, D. C. (1972). Marital dysfunctionahty and two person non-zero sum game behavior. J o d of Personulity and Socd Psychology. 21. 18-24.

Steinberg, R. & Shapiro, S. (1982). Sex differences and personality traits of female and male Masters of Business Administration Students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (3), 3 6 310.

REFERENCE NOTES I .

2.

Crandell, V . C. (1978). Expecting sex dferences and sex diferences in expecrmcies: A developmenrul d y s i r . Paper presented a t American Psychological Meetings, Toronto. Strache, K. (1976). Personality charocterirtics of men und women odminictrutors. Paper presented at the annual A.P.A. convention, Waslungton.

Manuscript received January 1987 Revised manuscript rcccived June 1987