Job satisfaction of male and female accounting faculty: the effect of sex-role orientation and academic rank.

Ward, Suzanne Pinac ; Cook, Ellen D. ; Ward, Dan R. 等

ABSTRACT

The glass ceiling which frequently stops women from gaining access to and advancing in the accounting profession has long been recognized. The accounting profession, like all organizations, has tended to foster self-replication; that is, individuals in the power structure tend to hire, mentor, and advance those individuals who are perceived to be most like themselves. Research has found that these persons tend to be "masculine" men. The academic arm of the profession, while subject to much less scrutiny and study, appears to have subscribed to the same stereotypical masculine orientation as the key to advancement and tenure.

This study examines the relationships among gender, sex-role orientation, academic rank, and job satisfaction among 101 university accounting professors. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory was utilized to measure the masculine and feminine personality characteristics of the respondents and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) to measure the level of respondent satisfaction. Results indicated that female accounting faculty tend to suppress their feminine characteristics and emphasize their masculines ones while in line for promotion to a higher rank. Furthermore, all accounting faculty, regardless of gender or sex-role orientation were generally satisfied with the nature of work, supervision, and co-workers, but less satisfied with promotion and pay.

INTRODUCTION

Women, in their attempt to gain admission and advance in the so-called "male-dominated professions," have far too frequently encountered gender inequities and barriers-obstacles frequently referred to as the "glass ceiling." Gender discrimination and inequity can take numerous forms. Maupin (1986) suggests that much of the discrimination against women has focused on sex-role stereotyping; i.e., a preconception of their feminine sex characteristics. Included in these preconceptions are that women are reluctant to accept responsibility or assume positions of leadership and that women are frequently absent from the workplace due to marriage and child rearing responsibilities. In contrast, society tends to stereotype males as competitive, non-giving, and judging success by their external accomplishments. Bay et al. (2001, p. 4) reports that the literature suggests that in academia, some of the feminine role characteristics such as lack of competitiveness, lack of assertiveness, patience, receptivity and modesty are traits that may prevent success. Such stereotyping may result in female professors being assigned to more gender-appropriate tasks such as teaching, advising, and student-centered service leaving the more assertive males to conduct the research, which contributes to the successful pursuit of tenure, and to carry on the leadership types of service.

While the academic arm of the accounting profession has been traditionally dominated by male faculty, there has been a marked increase in the number of female entrants into the academic environment. Norgaard (1989) found that there was a significant increase in the number of women accounting faculty members between 1981 and 1988 (14 percent to 22 percent) while only a slight change in the number of male faculty members occurred. In 1994, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) reported that approximately 26 percent of all accounting faculty members were female. The American Accounting Association (AAA) in its study The Report on Supply and Demand for Accounting Professors (AAA, 1994) noted that women comprised 44 percent of the 144 doctoral candidates who expected to enter accounting academia in 1994. Carolfi, et al. (1996) reported that while women are still under represented in the academic accounting profession, institutions have made significant strides in increasing the number of female accounting faculty on staff with 30 percent of the accounting doctorates awarded between 1988 and 1993 granted to women. Collins (2000) reported that between 1991 and 1997, 39.2 percent of faculty accepting employment were women.

In spite of these strides, several studies (Parker, 1995; Carolfi et al., 1996; Buckless, et al., 1998; Collins et al., 1998; and Collins et al., 2000) have noted that gender differences exist in the types of positions filled by new accounting doctorate, with newly minted female doctorates less likely than new male doctorates to attain appointments at certain doctoral and research oriented schools. Prior research also indicates that many of the new female accounting academicians report that they encountered discrimination in their work environment perceiving barriers to promotion to higher ranks and to administrative positions (Norgaard, 1989). Lehman (1992) suggested that this situation may be the result of gender discrimination. Saftner (1988), in a study of the promotion of terminally qualified accounting faculty, found that, while both men and women attained the rank of associate professor in comparable time periods, women were significantly slower in their advancement to the rank of full professor with men being promoted to that rank sixteen times more often than females. Carolfi, et al (1996) and Dwyer (1994) support the extended time period for women prior to their promotion to upper academic ranks with Carolfi, et al (1996) reporting a significant under representation at the rank of full professor.

As the number of highly qualified women entering academic accounting increases, promotion of women to senior ranks, movement into administrative positions, achievement of a semblance of earnings equality, and achievement of job satisfaction in an often indifferent and nonresponsive climate are frequently cited as areas of gender concern in academics. Both analytical and anecdotal evidence suggest that women in the accounting professorate have traditionally experienced the stereotypical environment described earlier. This, in conjunction with the theory of self-replication, suggests that the stereotypical masculine orientation is often the key to academic advancement and tenure. According to Kanter (1977),

(o)rganizations clearly reproduce themselves. People in power (who are mostly masculine men) mentor, encourage, and advance people who are most like themselves. Not surprisingly, then, the handful of women who actually do achieve senior rank in organizations usually resemble the men in power. They have had to identify with and emulate the masculine model in order to progress in the organization. Thus, numerous recent studies in organizational behavior have shown that there are apparently very few, if any, personality or behavioral differences between male and female managers (p. 72).

The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to investigate whether the stereotypical masculine orientation exists to a significant extent in academic accounting via an inquiry into the masculine/feminine sex-role characteristics of accounting faculty with respect to new hires (assistant professors) and advancement (associate and full professors), and, second, to examine the level of job satisfaction of male and female accounting faculty relative to their sex-role orientation and academic rank.

SELECTED LITERATURE REVIEW

The current study utilized two widely accepted instruments--the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI)--to first measure the masculine and feminine characteristics of university accounting professors and then to determine whether or not the masculinity and femininity scores of the BSRI correlate positively with levels of job satisfaction. In the sections that follow, the development and structure of the two instruments are briefly explained. Then, selected studies are reviewed beginning with those which, like the current study, employed both instruments. Finally, literature on sex-role characteristics and job satisfaction is discussed.

Sex-role identity has been defined as the relative degree to which one endorses the socially desirable traits or stereotypes associated with one's own and one's opposite gender (Jolson, 1997). Charging that sex-typing traditionally treated masculinity and femininity as mutually exclusive, Bem (1974) developed a sex-role inventory that characterizes a person as masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Recognized as "the most widely accepted and used of the measures of masculinity and femininity" (Powell and Butterfield, 1989), the BSRI is distinguished from other commonly used masculinity-femininity scales in two ways: (1) masculinity and femininity are treated as two independent dimensions rather than as ends of a single continuum thus allowing respondents to indicate that they are high on both dimensions, low on both, or high on one and low on the other; and (2) the BSRI is predicated on the concept of the "traditionally sex-typed person as someone who is highly attuned to cultural definitions of sex-appropriate behavior and who uses such definitions as the ideal standard against which his own behavior is to be evaluated" (Bem, 1981, 5).

The BSRI requires a respondent to indicate on a seven-point scale ranging from 1--"never or almost never true" to 7--"always or almost always true" how well each of the sixty personality characteristics--twenty stereotypically feminine, twenty stereotypically masculine, and twenty filler items--describe him/herself. These characteristics do not necessarily represent desired characteristics, but rather those perceived to be held by that gender. In assembling the lists, a personality characteristic qualified as masculine if it was independently judged by both males and females to be significantly more desirable for a man than for a woman and feminine if it was independently judged by both males and females to be significantly more desirable for a woman than for a man. A personality characteristic qualified as neutral with respect to gender if it was independently judged by both males and females to be no more desirable for one gender than for the other and if male and female judges did not differ significantly in their overall desirability judgments of that trait. No significant changes (the classification of undifferentiated was an addition) in the classifications of these characteristics has occurred since the development of the BSRI (Street, Kimmel, and Kromrey, 1995; Holt and Ellis, 1998).

A masculinity score and a femininity score, representing the extent to which a person endorses masculine and feminine personality characteristics, are computed for each respondent. A masculine sex role represents both the endorsement of masculine attributes and the simultaneous rejection of feminine attributes while a feminine sex role represents the endorsement of feminine attributes and the simultaneous rejection of masculine attributes. An androgynous sex-role results from endorsement of both feminine and masculine traits while rejection of both sets of characteristics produces an undifferentiated sex-role. Currently, no particular sex role is viewed as better than any other, but rather is dependent on the appropriateness for the individual (Street, Kimmel, and Kromrey, 1995).

The BSRI has been used in a number of studies by researchers in other disciplines (Beere, 1990, reported that 795 articles and 167 ERIC documents have used the BSRI) as well as business-related disciplines. Powell and Butterfield (1979), in a survey of undergraduate and graduate business students to investigate whether there was a shift away from sex-typing of the management profession as masculine, found no such shift. In a subsequent study, Powell and Butterfield (1981) hypothesized that individuals' sex-role identities rather than sex would predict their managerial aspirations; Comer and Jolson (1985) investigated whether a student's gender or self-perceived sex role was a significant predictor of the student's career choice; and Quackenbush (1987) investigated whether masculinity and femininity are actually social competencies that contribute to an individual's personal and social effectiveness. Recent studies have attempted to determine that sex-role identity, specifically one classified as androgynous, is a more promising mechanism than gender to identify those who are likely to display characteristics and behavior that correlate with effectiveness as a sales leader (Jolson et al, 1997); investigated management response styles as determined by the BSRI (Bows-Sperry et al, 1997); reported that public (state government) executives must first prove their masculinity, irrespective of biological sex, in order to succeed (Kosseck, 1998); and determined that compared with other gender roles, with regard to conflict management styles, masculine individuals were highest on the dominating conflict style, feminine individuals were highest on the avoiding style, and androgynous individuals were highest on the integrating style (Brewer et al., 2002).

A significant body of research on sex-role stereotyping, and more specifically, androgyny, exists in the literature. Maupin (1990, 1991 and 1993) surveyed Big Six CPAs over a period of years to assess their beliefs regarding the reasons for the scarcity of women partners in accounting firms. She reported that male CPAs put a disproportionate emphasis on the characteristics of females as causal factors for women's general lack of success, thereby implying that, in order to succeed, women should adopt a model of organization behavior that is essentially male. On the other hand, female CPAs put more emphasis on situation-centered reasons and believed that both personal growth by women and changes in practices and social composition of public accounting firms would be necessary before significant numbers of women would advance to partnership levels. Several studies have shown that the handful of women who actually do achieve senior rank in organizations usually resemble males in power (Baril et al., 1988; Powell, 1988; Powell and Butterfield, 1989; Brenner et al., 1989; and Fagenson, 1990) and that women who have been successful in formerly male professions are much more likely to display masculine characteristics than other women (Lemkau, 1983; Doerfler & Kammer, 1986; Maupin & Hehman, 1994). Most recently, studies report that women in high levels of position or power are perceived as masculine relative to men and women in low levels of position or power (Ledet and Henley, 2000) and that a traditional feminine gender role still seems to negatively influence a managerial career for women in spite of the fact that many organizations have indicated that they are actually looking for leadership qualities which are associated with the female gender role (Ivarsson and Ekehammar, 2001). In a study of academia, Street et al. (1995) reported that university professors, in general, believe that the ideal woman is androgynous, that is, possessing traits which are both stereotypically male and those which are stereotypically female.

Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied variables in the field of organizational behavior with more than 6,300 articles or dissertations on job satisfaction in the PSYCINFO computer database by the mid-1990s. The roots of empirical research may be traced back to Robert Hoppock's 1935 book, Job Satisfaction in which he reported that job satisfaction varies systematically by job level. The primary research into the measurement of job satisfaction was conducted by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) (and revised by Smith et al. in 1987) who developed the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). The JDI is designed to elicit and measure employee satisfaction concerning their work environment within five key areas: (1) general nature of work, (2) supervision (3) co-workers, (4) promotion, and (5) pay. The format of the JDI is that of short descriptive adjective statements designed to garner responses for specific areas of satisfaction with work-oriented rather than self-oriented responses sought (Ward et.al., 1986).

Viewed by many investigators as one of the most thoroughly researched and developed measures of its kind, the validity and reliability of the instrument have been widely tested in 277 journal articles between 1974 and 1997 (Reiner, 1999) among different occupational, racial, and gender groups (Igbaria and Guimaraes, 1999). Most recently, Kinicki et al. (2002) offered further support for the JDI's consturct validity. Only a select group of studies, those that relate to either accounting professionals or faculty, in general, will be discussed here.

Ward et al (1986) used the JDI to measure the level of job satisfaction of 643 female accountants and reported that, overall, female CPAs appeared to be satisfied with their job and work environments. However, women accountants are most satisfied with supervision and co-workers and least satisfied with their promotional opportunities and pay.

With regard to using the JDI to measure levels of job satisfaction in academic settings, Ormsby and Ormsby (1988) studied faculty in a metropolitan state-supported southeastern university to determine the effects of unionization and other personal characteristics (e.g., sex, age, tenure status, academic college, academic rank, pay level and union voting behavior) on levels of job satisfaction. Results indicated that unionization had not noticeably changed job satisfaction and that there was a significant increase in only the pay dimension of the JDI.

Using data from a representative sample of male and female faculty collected both before and after a successful unionization attempt, Ormsby and Watts (1991) reported that unionization has no significant effect on faculty satisfaction. Further, they reported that the level of job satisfaction for male faculty was significantly higher than for female faculty. Tang (1999) examined the gender differences in job satisfaction of staff and faculty in a southeastern university and found no significant differences. However, consistent with other studies of gender differences in job satisfaction, there were significant differences between males and females with males tending to have higher satisfaction with pay than females and females tending to have higher satisfaction with co-workers than males. In particular, pay satisfaction was significantly associated with gender, higher status, and satisfaction with work and promotions. While not using the JDI, Ward and Sloane (2000) considered job satisfaction in the academic labor market by drawing upon a particularly detailed data set of 900 academics from five traditional Scottish universities. Results indicated that reports of overall job satisfaction do not vary widely by gender. While comparison salary is found to be an important influence on academics' overall job satisfaction, evidence suggests that academics place a lower emphasis on pecuniary relative to non-pecuniary (promotion prospects, job security) aspects of work than other sectors of the workforce.

Several studies have employed both the BSRI and the JDI to evaluate accounting professionals as well as management personnel. Maupin (1986) sought to evaluate the validity of the proposition that, to be successful in a male-dominated environment, women have to assume more of the characteristics identified as being masculine. She further hypothesized that a woman CPA's sex-role characteristics can be used to predict her JDI score. Surveying 500 women CPAs to investigate both job satisfaction and career advancement, she reported that sex role characteristics can be used to predict a woman's job satisfaction level with higher masculinity and femininity scores positively correlated with greater levels of job satisfaction. Further, she reported that women CPAs classified as androgynous achieved the greatest job satisfaction and that women who have advanced to upper levels of the public accounting profession (partners, managers, seniors) possess significantly different masculine and feminine characteristics than recently hired CPAs (juniors). Specifically, she found that 76 percent of women partners were androgynous and the remaining 24 percent were sex-reversed; i.e., scoring significantly higher on masculine characteristics than on feminine characteristics. At the entry level, 52 percent were feminine; 24 percent, androgynous; 20 percent, undifferentiated; and 4 percent, masculine. She then concluded that androgyny seems to be acceptable alternative to the exclusively male behavior that, heretofore, was perceived as making successful CPAs in general.

Maupin and Lehman (1994) examined the relationship between sex-role orientation and both occupational status and job satisfaction levels of 461 then "Big Six" auditors (221 male and 240 female). Studying their subjects over a five-year period to determine if both male and female employees would inevitably reject "feminine" stereotypes and adopt "masculine" stereotypes as a condition of moving up the corporate hierarchy, they found that a high stereotypical masculine sex-role orientations was significantly (positively) related to higher occupational status as well as to job satisfaction and lower turnover. Further, they found significant differences between auditors at the junior, senior, manager and partner levels with respect to masculine and feminine characteristics. Significant differences between both masculinity and femininity scores were found for all male auditors, while females had significantly different masculinity scores but not significantly different femininity scores. Male partners were 59 percent androgynous and 41 percent masculine with the percentage of males with high masculinity scores (either androgynous or masculine) increasing directly with career ranking (e.g., 55 percent, juniors; 79 percent, seniors; 87 percent, managers; 100 percent, partners.) In addition, the percentage of males with high femininity scores (androgynous or feminine) also increased with career ranking. Of the female respondents, 54 percent of the partners level were androgynous with the remaining 46 percent were masculine. Thus, 100 percent of the female partners had high masculinity scores and 54 percent had high femininity scores. Similar to the males, the percent of females with high masculinity scores increased with career ranking (juniors, 39 percent; seniors, 53 percent; managers, 85 percent; partners, 100 percent.) However, unlike the males, the percentage of females with high femininity scores decreased as career ranking increased, declining from 72 percent for juniors to 54 percent for partners. Finally, with regard to the level of job satisfaction, they reported that, for the male auditors, both the masculinity and femininity scores of the BSRI correlated positively with the JDI score. For female auditors, however, the masculinity score correlated positively with the JDI score, but the correlation between the femininity score and the JDI score was not significant. The researchers reported that evidence indicates that male and female auditors who successfully reach the partnership level are more similar than different and that a high stereotypical masculine orientation is indeed a key ingredient to advancement, job satisfaction, and long tenure in contemporary "Big Six" accounting organizations. They summarized their findings concluding that "(f)or many accountants, then, it appears that being successful in an accounting organization means suppressing or eliminating attitudes and behaviors that would identify them as "typically female", and therefore as ill-suited for partnership roles as those roles are currently defined" (p. 435).

Using both the BSRI and the Supervision Component of the JDI, Maupin (1989) examined whether managers in California and Hawaii who are perceived by their subordinates to be effective supervisors possess sex-role characteristics that differentiate them from managers who are perceived to be unsatisfactory supervisors. Findings indicated that a supervisor's sex-role characteristics can be used to predict a subordinate's level of satisfaction with the supervisor and that the level of satisfaction increases as the supervisor becomes more androgynous.

Most recently Bay et al. (2001) examined the relationship between gender orientation as measured by the BSRI and success and between gender orientation and job satisfaction among accounting professors. They reported significant differences in the gender orientations across the ranks of female accounting professors with female accounting faculty at higher ranks more likely to possess masculine characteristics than those at lower ranks. Further, women were more likely to display cross gender characteristics that men (56% of women were either androgynous or masculine while only 43% of men were either feminine or androgynous). Female assistants were more likely to possess feminine characteristics (feminine or androgynous) than associates who were more likely to possess feminine characteristics than full professors. On the other hand, males presented different patterns of gender orientations with an increase across the ranks of feminine characteristics. Male full professors and associates were more likely than assistants to possess feminine characteristics. Job satisfaction was found to be related to gender orientation, but not to gender. Specifically, strongly masculine or strongly feminine individuals were less likely to feel satisfied with their jobs than other personality types while androgynous and undifferentiated accounting professors reported the higher levels of job satisfaction. As appropriate, specific results of the Bay et al. study will be compared with the results of the current study in the sections that follow.

METHODOLOGY

To examine whether the stereotypical masculine orientation exists to a significant extent in academic accounting as well as the job satisfaction of accounting educators, a systematic random sample of 250 female and 250 male accounting academicians was selected from universities and colleges across the United States. Responses were received 101 faculty members resulting in a 20.2 percent response rate. Of the respondents, 51 were female and 50 were male academicians. Testing for non-response bias via Oppenheim's technique (1966) of comparing the early and the late responses indicated no significant differences between early and late responses and, thus, no evidence of material non-response bias.

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was the instrument utilized to measure the sex-role characteristics of the respondents via classification of the subjects into four distinct sex-role groups: feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. The items contained on the masculinity, femininity, and neutral scales of the BSRI are presented in Table 1. For each item, a respondent indicates how well that characteristic applies to himself/herself by using a 7 point scale where 1 represents "never or almost never true" and 7, "always or almost always true."

A femininity score (the mean of the respondent's feminine items) and a masculinity score (the mean of his/her masculine items) were determined for each respondent. Using the relations between each respondent's individual femininity and masculinity scores and the overall feminine mean score of 4.550 and the overall masculine median score of 5.200, respondents were classified into one of the four sex-role groups: androgynous (individual scores exceeded both the femininity and masculinity median scores), feminine (individual scores exceeded the feminine median score but not the masculine median score), masculine (individual scores exceeded the masculinity median score but not the femininity median score), or undifferentiated (individual scores did not exceed either the femininity or the masculinity median scores).

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was the instrument utilized to measure the job satisfaction of accounting academicians within five key areas: the general nature of work, supervision, co-workers, promotion, and pay. The JDIs were scored which resulted in a satisfaction index for each respondent in each of the five key dimensions of job satisfaction. No JDI score is considered "passing" or "failing", but is useful in comparison with the score or scores of other individuals or groups. However, the higher the individual score, the greater the level of job satisfaction. A score of 18 represents indifference and a score of 27, a balanced attitude toward job satisfaction.

Responses to the BSRI were stratified by gender and academic rank in order to examine the relation between the sex-role orientation of accounting faculty and their academic rank as full, associate, or assistant professors. According to Bem (1976), a person's individual behavior as determined by the BSRI changes very little over time and thus age is not a mitigating factor. In addition to being stratified by gender and academic rank, the responses to the JDI were also stratified by sex-role orientation.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results of the analysis are presented in the following sections. First, the sex-role orientations of the respondents are discussed with the effect of rank and gender examined. Then, the levels of job satisfaction relative to sex-role orientation and academic rank, stratified by gender, are addressed.

Table 2 presents the sex-role classifications of the respondents stratified by rank and gender. As can be seen, overall 39.2 percent of the female respondents were classified as masculine (high masculine, low feminine; i.e., sex reversed) with another 11.8 percent androgynous (high masculine, high feminine). Thus over half (51%) of all female respondents in this study had high masculinity scores. Comparably, while over half (56%) of the female respondents in the Bay et al. study also had high masculinity scores, the composition differed from the current study in that only 15.7 percent were classified as masculine with the other 40.5 percent as androgynous. The heavier concentration of androgynous orientation as compared to the masculine was consistent at all levels. When looking at the sex-role groupings of females in this study by rank, higher percentages of women at the lower academic ranks had high masculinity scores with approximately 41 percent of female assistant professors (35.3% masculine, i.e., sex reversed, and 5.9% androgynous) and approximately 63 percent of female associate professors (54.2% masculine, i.e., sex reversed, and 8.3% androgynous) reporting such scores. Similarly, Bay et al. reported high masculinity scores for 54 percent of female assistants (13.5% masculine and 40.5% androgynous) and approximately 59 percent for female associates (10.8% masculine and 48.7% androgynous). Thus, it appears that female academicians tend to recognize that, consistent with prior research, masculine behavioral patterns are advantageous, if not necessary, for advancement in academia. Interestingly, in the current study a lower percentage (40%; 10% masculine, i.e., sex reversed, and 30% androgynous) of female full professors had high masculinity scores which differs from prior research in that females at the top ranked position generally all report high masculinity scores. The results reported by Bay et al. were similar to those in the current study in that not all female full professors had high masculinity scores (53.3%) with 33.3 percent classified as masculine and 20 percent as androgynous.

Approximately one in three females in the current study reported high femininity scores (23.5% feminine (high feminine, low masculine) and 11.8% androgynous (high feminine, high masculine)) as compared to 60 percent in the Bay et al. study with the difference caused by the high concentration of females (40.5%) classified as androgynous in that study. Consistent with prior research, a higher percentage of females at the top academic rank of full professor indicated high femininity scores (which was not the case in the Bay et.al study (46.7%). However, unlike prior studies, similar percentages of these female full professors were classified as feminine (30%) and androgynous (30%). Much lower percentages of female accounting faculty at the associate (16.7% feminine, 8.3% androgynous) and the assistant (29.4% feminine, 5.9% androgynous) indicated high femininity scores. These results were similar to those reported by Bay et al. In that this percentage fell as rank increased (64.8% assistant, 59.5% associate, 46.7% full). One possible interpretation of this result is that women in accounting academia repress their feminine behavioral patterns and attitudes in favor of their masculine ones as a means of gaining promotion to higher ranks.

With regard to the sex-role groupings of male respondents, 44 percent reported high masculinity scores with 24 percent classed as masculine and 20 percent as androgynous, very similar to the results in the Bay et al. study where 45.8 percent reported high masculinity scores-28 percent classed as masculine and 17.8 percent as androgynous. The percentage of male accounting academicians indicating high masculinity scores is fairly consistent across all three ranks (44.4 percent (16.6% masculine, 27.8% androgynous) of full professors, 42.9 percent (28.6% masculine, 14.3% androgynous) of associates, and 45.5 percent (27.3% masculine, 18.2% androgynous) of assistants). In contrast to the results discussed previously for the female respondents, a majority of male accounting academicians (54%; 34% feminine, i.e., sex reversed, 20% androgynous) reported high femininity scores. Approximately one out of two male full professors had high femininity scores (27.8% feminine, i.e., sex reversed, 27.8% androgynous) which is somewhat consistent with findings in prior studies as well as with the Bay et. al. study (50.4% of full professors having high femininity scores; 27.7% feminine, 22.7% androgynous).

When looking at progression from assistant to associate to full professor for the male and female accounting academicians in this study, several interesting observations can be made. At the assistant and associate ranks, a higher percentage of females (35.3% assistant, 54.2% associate) were identified as masculine than of males (27.3% assistant, 28.6% associate) with this trend reversed at the full professor level. (Bay et al. reported just the opposite; lower percentages of masculine females at the two lower ranks (assistants: 13.5% female vs. 22.8% male; associates: 10.8% female vs. 31.1% male) with a higher percentage (33.3% female vs. 28.6% male) at the full level.) The opposite is true in this study for those classed as feminine with lower percentages of females at the lower ranks (29.4% assistant, 16.7% associate) in the feminine category and higher percentages of males (36.4% assistant, 38.1% associate) in that category. Bay et al. reported similar percentages of feminine females at the assistant level (22.8% male, 24.3% female) with a higher percentage of male associate professors (23.6% male vs. 10.8% female) in that category. Again, this trend is reversed at the full professor level. In both this study and the Bay et al. study, similar percentages of both female and male full professors reported high femininity scores (60% female, 55.6% male in the current study; 46.7% female, 50.4% male in the Bay et. al. study.) Thus, consistent with prior research, both males and females at the highest ranked position reported high femininity scores.

Table 3 shows the ANOVA results for the female and male accounting academicians in this study. As can be seen, there are no significant differences in either femininity or masculinity characteristics of the full, associate, and assistant professors in this study with one exception. For male accounting faculty, the femininity scores were significantly different (p < .10) between the different ranks. In particular, the femininity scores of male assistant professors were significantly lower than those of associate and full professors.

Table 4 presents the femininity and masculinity score means for the female and male accounting faculty in this study stratified by academic rank. As can be seen, for female faculty, only the femininity mean score for full professors (4.7350) is above the overall femininity mean (4.550). Furthermore, only the mean masculinity score for female associate professors (5.3229) is above the overall masculinity mean (5.200). Interestingly, the mean femininity score for male full professors (4.6583) and male associate professors (4.5595) are both above the overall mean femininity score of 4.5500. In addition, for male accounting academicians, the masculinity mean scores for full professors (5.3250) and assistant professors (5.2364) are both above the overall masculinity mean score of 5.2000.

Tables 5-9 present the respondents' mean JDI scores in each of the five satisfactions dimensions (work, supervision, co-workers, promotion, pay) stratified by gender, sex-role orientation, and academic rank. The reader should keep in mind that a score of 18 represents indifference toward a dimension with a score of 27 representing a balanced attitude. Each of the five dimensions is discussed in the following sections.

Nature of Work

Overall, the males and female accounting academicians in this study are satisfied with the nature of their work as indicated by the mean JDI scores presented in Table 5 (female mean 41.24, male mean 38.52; both over the balanced score of 27). Masculine females indicated a much higher level of satisfaction with the nature of their work (46.05) than any other gender-sex-role combination with masculine males reporting the lowest level of satisfaction (35.50). Furthermore, undifferentiated academic accountants as a whole had the lowest satisfaction with work (37.88) than the other sex-role groups (masculine 42.09, feminine 39.83, androgynous 38.63).

For the female academicians, assistant professors regardless of sex-role characteristics generally reported higher satisfaction with the nature of their work (masculine 47.5; feminine 39.6; androgynous 45.0; undifferentiated 37.2.) In fact, masculine female assistant professors had the highest level of satisfaction with the nature of their work than another other sex-role-gender-rank combination (47.5). For masculine and undifferentiated females, the mean JDI score decreased as academic rank increased (masculine: 47.5, 45.69, 42.0; undifferentiated: 37.2, 36.6, 36.0). However, for the feminine and androgynous female accounting educators, lower satisfaction with work was reported by the associate professors (feminine 37.5, androgynous 34.5) with an increase in satisfaction at the professor level (39.0 for feminine, 42.0 for the androgynous) (although not as high as at the assistant level).

For males, satisfaction with work was lowest at the full professor level for three sex-role classifications (masculine 31.0, feminine 39.0, androgynous 35.4). Interestingly, however, undifferentiated male full professors reported the highest level of work satisfaction (43.2) among all of the male rank-sex-role groups with masculine male full professors indicating the lowest satisfaction with work among all groups (including females) (31.0). Males with masculine and feminine sex-roles reported decreased levels of work satisfaction as rank increased (masculine: 38.0, 36.5, 31.0; feminine: 42.75, 40.5, 39.0).

Supervision. As Table 6 indicates, both male and female academic accountants are generally well satisfied with their level of supervision and/or their supervisor (male mean 40.86; female mean 37.06). Feminine males reported much higher levels of satisfaction with supervision than any other gender-sex-role category (46.06) with masculine females reporting the lowest (34.20). In general, those academic accountants classified as feminine (42.10) or undifferentiated (40.00) exhibited higher levels of supervision satisfaction than did those in the masculine (36.38) or androgynous (36.75) groupings.

For the female accounting academicians, masculine and androgynous full professors together with androgynous assistant professors reported an extremely high level of satisfaction with their supervision (all had a mean JDI index of 51.0). In contrast, the female androgynous associate professors were very dissatisfied with their supervisor and/or supervision as reflected in the mean JDI of 16.5, which is below the indifference score of 18. Denial of promotion to the rank of full professor or a long time in rank are two possible explanations for this dissatisfaction with supervision. Satisfaction with the level of supervision increased as masculine females rose in academic rank while the opposite was true for undifferentiated females.

Male academic accountants did not report the extremes found for the females regarding satisfaction with their supervision. For both masculine and feminine males, satisfaction levels increased as rank increased (masculine 37.0, 39.5, 44.0; feminine 42.75, 46.88, 47.4). Androgynous assistant professors had the lowest level of supervisory satisfaction among the male groups and reported a balanced attitude of 27.0.

Co-Workers. As can be seen in Table 7, accounting academicians appear to be generally satisfied with their peers in the workplace (females 31.59, males 33.84), although not as satisfied as they are with the nature of their work or their level of supervision. Masculine males reported essentially a balanced attitude toward their co-workers (27.75), the lowest among the gender-sex-role groups, while feminine males reported the highest level of co-worker satisfaction (37.94).

For the females in the study, masculine full professors had the highest level of peer satisfaction (42.0) while feminine assistant professors actually reported a slight dissatisfaction with co-workers, reporting the lowest JDI mean of 25.2. Interestingly, the feminine female's satisfaction with co-workers goes from slightly dissatisfied (25.2) at the assistant level to basically neutral at the associate level (27.75) to somewhat satisfied at the full level (34.0). For the other three sex-role groups, associate professors were less satisfied with co-workers than assistant professors were with a slight increase in satisfaction at the full level. This may be the result of promotions being denied to the respondent females in the study while at the same time co-workers received such promotions.

Undifferentiated male accounting academicians were initially fairly satisfied with co-workers (37.2) with satisfaction levels decreasing as rank increased (associate 34.8; full 30.0). The opposite is true of the feminine male educators whose satisfaction with co-workers rose as academic rank increased (assistant 35.25, associate 38.25, full 39.6). Masculine male educators, originally satisfied with their peers (31.0), were dissatisfied with them at the associate level (25.5) with satisfaction somewhat recovered at the full level (29.0). As with the females, this disenchantment with co-workers may be the result of promotions going to others rather than to the respondents in the study. Although the androgynous male associate professors were actually fairly satisfied with their co-workers (40.0), this satisfaction decreased at the full professor level (30.0).

Promotion. A review of Table 8 indicates, that, generally speaking, all accounting academicians reported dissatisfaction with promotional possibilities with males in general having lower JDI scores (females 21.76, males 19.68). Masculine males, in particular, indicated much promotion dissatisfaction (16.5) although androgynous females exhibited a fairly similar JDI index (17.0). Feminine females (25.5) and feminine males (22.59) appeared to be the most satisfied of all sex-role categories (while still expressing somewhat of a dissatisfaction).

Female feminine associate professors reported a slight level of satisfaction (28.5) with promotion, the highest mean JDI of all of the gender-rank-sex-role groups. Androgynous female assistant professors displayed much dissatisfaction with promotions (12.0) which decreased to extreme dissatisfaction at the associate rank (9.0), but which, interestingly, increased substantially at the full professor level (24.0) which may result from the decrease in such extreme competition. For females in the other three sex-roles, satisfaction with promotion generally fell from the associate to the full level. This may, perhaps, reflect the fact that full professors have reached the pinnacle of academic rank and can advance no further except into administrative positions.

The only male sex-role-rank combination which even reported a slight satisfaction with their promotions were the feminine full professors (28.0). All remaining groupings reported slight to extreme dissatisfaction (below the balanced score of 27 as well as, in some cases, below the indifference score of 18 which generally indicates a high level of dissatisfaction). Masculine males, while expressing mild dissatisfaction with promotion at the assistant level (24.0), became extremely disenchanted with their peers at the associate level (13.0) with a slight recovery at the full level (18.0). Undifferentiated male accounting academicians became increasingly disillusioned with promotions as they progressed up the ranks (assistant 24.0, associate 21.0, full 13.2).

Pay. Surprisingly, accounting academicians reported being somewhat satisfied with their pay as evidenced by mean JDI scores of 30.12 for males and 31.53 for females as presented in Table 9. Feminine females (25.0) and androgynous males (24.6) were the only two gender-sex-role groups which reported dissatisfaction with their pay.

Females at the assistant professor rank, regardless of sex-role classification, were fairly satisfied with their pay. The satisfaction of undifferentiated females increased at the associate level (37.2), but fell over 10 points at the full professor level (26.0). The satisfaction level of the masculine (33.69) and the androgynous (27.0) females fell at the associate level with an increase at the full level. However, the largest decrease occurred in the satisfaction index of feminine females which fell from 39.6 to 19.5, from fairly satisfied to fairly dissatisfied; a trend which continued at the full professor level with feminine females reporting a mean JDI of 8.00, extreme dissatisfaction.

For the males, only feminine (33.0) and androgynous (36.0) assistant professors reported being satisfied with pay as both masculine (24.0) and undifferentiated (27.0) assistants indicated dissatisfaction with their enumeration. Androgynous males became increasingly disenchanted with their pay as their satisfaction levels decreased as rank increased (assistant 36.0, associate 24.0, full 20.4), moving from fairly satisfied to fairly dissatisfied. However, the opposite is true of masculine males whose satisfaction increased from 24.0 at the assistant level (mild dissatisfaction) to 27.0 (balanced) at the associate level to 36.0 (fairly satisfied) at the full level. Undifferentiated male full professors reported a similar satisfaction with pay (38.4) having increased from a balanced attitude at the assistant level (27.0) and dissatisfaction at the associate level (21.0). Feminine males, however, indicated higher levels of satisfaction at the lower ranks (assistant 33.0, associate 39.75) with only a balanced attitude of satisfaction toward pay reported at the full professor level (27.6).

Analysis was conducted to determine whether the JDI scores of the respondents were correlated significantly with either masculinity or femininity BSRI scores. There was no significant correlation between the femininity BSRI scores and any of the dimensions of job satisfaction. However, the masculinity BSRI scores were significantly correlated negatively to three of the JDI dimensions: work (Pearson's r = -.432, p=.01), co-workers (Pearson's r = -.554, p=.01) and supervision (Pearson's r = -.333, p=.05). To determine the effect of gender, sex-role orientation, and academic rank on satisfaction with work, supervision, co-workers, promotion, and pay, a multi variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. No significant main effects or interaction effects were found.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Many professions, including accounting academia, are frequently perceived as fostering self-replication of "masculine" behavior throughout the power hierarchy; that is, a person has to exhibit masculine traits and attitudes, not feminine ones. This study provides insight into the masculine/feminine characteristics of female and male accounting educators by examining their sex-role orientations using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory and into their degree of job satisfaction by utilizing the Job Descriptive Index. Prior research indicates that a stereotypical masculine orientation is often the key to advancement into the upper echelons of power in any profession or organization. The results of this study are consistent with prior research (including Bay et al , 2001) in that half of the females in this study had high masculinity scores. This is particularly true at the lower ranks of associate and assistant professor. In addition, the majority of males at the full and associate professor levels reported high femininity scores which is consistent with findings in Bay et al. as well as other prior studies.

However, this study had several results which diverge from the findings of previous studies including Bay et al. For example, lower percentages of females at the highest academic rank of full professor had high masculinity scores, i.e., sex reversed. Additionally, while the majority of female full professors reported high femininity scores which is consistent with prior studies, in the current study, a higher percentage of the female full professors were classified as feminine rather than androgynous which is contrary to previous findings. Furthermore, masculinity scores for both female and male accounting educators did not increase as rank or position increased which was the case in prior studies. Masculinity scores for female accounting faculty increased from assistant to associate, but then fell at the full professor level.

Regarding job satisfaction in accounting academia, all accounting faculty, regardless of gender or sex-role orientation, generally reported satisfaction with the nature of their work, their supervisors, and their co-workers. Not surprising, less satisfaction and, in some cases, even dissatisfaction were indicated for promotion and pay.

The results of the current study appear to indicate that female accounting academicians tend to suppress their femininity characteristics and emphasize their masculines ones while they are in line for promotion to a higher rank. However, the results seem to imply that female accounting professors revert to their feminine characteristics while still retaining some of the masculine traits once the top rank of full professor is attained where they are somewhat satisfied with promotions and really dissatisfied with pay. Perhaps, these female full professors feel that they no longer have to play the "masculine" game once they have attained tenure and the top rung of the academic ladder.

Consistent with Bay et al., the males in this study appear to be able to exhibit not only masculine traits, but feminine ones as well. Thus the results of this study may indicate that accounting academia allows male accounting faculty at all ranks to exhibit the softer emotions related to human needs while not allowing female faculty at the lower ranks to manifest these same emotions. Only when females have no further upward steps to take does the academic environment allow the expression of these feminine characteristics by female accounting faculty. Thus the accounting academic arena appears to continue to conform to the "stereotypic male masculine model" as the road to success and supports the premise that organizations, business or academic, tend to reproduce themselves.

NOTE

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Thomas E. Wilson, Jr. and Ms. Tracy Bundy.

REFERENCES

American Accounting Association. (1994). Report on supply & demand of accounting professors. Sarasota, FL, AAA.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1994). The AICPA report on the gender and ethical/racial breakdown of accounting department heads & faculty. New York: AICPA.

Baril, G., N. Elbert, S. Maher-Potter & G. Reavy. (1989). Are androgynous managers really more effective? Group & Organization Studies, (Winter), 234-249.

Bay, D., M. Allen & J. Njoroge. (2001). Gender orientation, success and job satisfaction in accounting academia. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 8, 1-20.

Beere, C. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood.

Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(2), 155-162.

Bem, S. (1981). Bem sex-role inventory, Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bows-Sperry, L., J. Veiga & J. Yanouzas. (1997). An analysis of managerial helping responses based on social role theory. Groups and Organization Management, (December), 445-459.

Brenner, O., J. Tomkiewicz & V. Schein. (1989). The relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characters revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662-669.

Brewer, N., P. Mitchell & N. Weber. (2002). Gender role, organizational status, and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(1), 78-94.

Buckless, F., S. Ravenscroft & A. Baldwin. (1998). Educational qualifications and gender: Accounting for women as adjuncts. Journal of Education for Business, (Jan-Feb), 151-156.

Carolfi, I. A., C. M. Pillsbury & J. R. Hasselback. (1996). The hiring of women in accounting academia. Journal of Education for Business, (January/February), 151-156.

Collins, A., B. Parrish & D. Collins. (1998). Gender and the tenure track: Some survey evidence. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(Fall), 231-246.

Collins, D., A. Reitenga, A. Collins & S. Lane. (2000). "Glass walls" in academic accounting? The role of gender in initial employment position. Issues in Accounting Education, 15 (Aug), 372-393.

Comer, L., & M. Jolson. (1985). Sex-labeling of selling jobs and their applicants. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 5 (1), 15-23.

Doerfler, M. & P. Kammer. (1986). Workaholism, sex, and sex role stereotyping among female professionals. Sex Roles, A Journal of Research, 14, 551-560.

Dwyer, P. D. (1994). Gender differences in the scholarly activities of accounting academics: An empirical investigation. Issues in Accounting Education, (Fall), 231-246.

Fagenson, E. (1990). Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined as a function of individuals' sex and level in the organizational power hierarchy, A test of four theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 204-211.

Holt, C. & J. Ellis. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles, A Journal of Research, 39, 929-938.

Ivarsson, S. & B. Ekehammar. (2001). Women's entry into management: Comparing women managers and non-managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4), 301.

Jolson, M., A. Dubinsky, L. Comer & F. Yammarino. (1997). Sex-role identity. Marketing Management, (Winter), 49.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books

Kinicki, A.J., F. McKee-Ryan, C. Schriesheim & K. Carson. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, (Feb), 14-32.

Kossek, E. (1998). Gender, power, leadership, and governance. Administrative Science Quarterly, (Dec), 946-950.

Ledet, L. & T. Henley. (2000). Perceptions of women's power as a function of position within an organization. Journal of Psychology, 134 (Sept), 515-527.

Lehman, C. (1992). Herstory in accounting, The first eighty years. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, (April/May), 261-285.

Lemkau, J. (1983). Women in male-dominated professions, Distinguishing personality and background characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8(2), 144-165.

Maupin, R. & C. Lehman. (1994). Talking heads, stereotypes, status, sex-roles and satisfaction of female and male auditors. Accounting Organizations and Society, 19 (4/5), 427-437.

Maupin, R. & C. Lehman. (1986). The impact of sex-role characteristics on the job satisfaction and success of women CPAs. The Woman CPA, (July), 35-37.

Maupin, R. & C. Lehman. (1990). Sex role identity and career success of certified public accountants. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 97-106.

Maupin, R. & C. Lehman. (1991). Why are there so few women CPA partners? Ohio CPA Journal, (Nov/Dec), 17-22.

Maupin, R. & C. Lehman. (1993). Why are there so few women accounting partners? Managerial Auditing Journal, 8, 10-10.

Norgaard, C. (1989). A status report on academic women accountants. Issues in Accounting Education, (Spring), 11-28.

Quackenbush, R. (1987). Sex roles & social perception. Human Relations, 40(10), 659-670.

Parker, D. (1995). An examination of the distribution of female accounting academicians: Evidence of regional and institutional bias. Unpublished working paper, Stephen F. Austin State University.

Powell, G. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park: Sage.

Powell, G. & D. Butterfield. (1979). The good manager, masculine or androgynous? Academy of Management Journal, (June), 395-403.

Powell, G. & D. Butterfield. (1981). A note on sex-role identity effects on managerial aspirations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54 (4), 299-301.

Powell, G. & D. Butterfield. (1989). The 'good manager,' Did androgyny fare better in the 1980s? Group and Organization Studies, 216-233.

Saftner, D. (1988). The promotion of academic accountants. Journal of Accounting Education, 6 (1), 55-66. Street, S., Kimmel, E. & J. Kromrey. (1995). Revisiting university student gender role perceptions. Sex Roles, A Journal of Research, 33, 183-201.

Street, S., Kromrey, J. & E. Kimmel. (1995). University faculty gender role perceptions. Sex Roles, A Journal of Research, 32, 407-422.

Suzanne Pinac Ward, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Ellen D. Cook, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Dan R. Ward, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Table 1: Items on the Masculinity, Femininity, and Neutral Scales of
the BSRI

Masculine Items

49. Acts as leader *
46. Aggressive
58. Ambitious
22. Analytical
13. Assertive
10. Athletic
55. Competitive
37. Dominant
19. Forceful
25. Has leadership abilities
 7. Independent
52. Individualistic
31. Makes decisions easily
40. Masculine
 1. Self-reliant
34. Self-sufficient
16. Strong personality
43. Willing to take a stand
28. Willing to take risks

Feminine Items

11. Affectionate
 5. Cheerful
50. Childlike
52. Compassionate
53. Does not use harsh language
35. Eager to soothe hurt feelings
20. Feminine
59. Gentle
47. Gullible
56. Loves children
26. Sensitive to needs of others
 8. Shy
38. Soft spoken
23. Sympathetic
44. Tender
29. Understanding
42. Warm
 2. Yielding

Neutral Items

51. Adaptable
36. Conceited
 9. Conscientious
60. Conventional
45. Friendly
15. Happy
 3. Helpful
24. Jealous
39. Likeable
 6. Moody
21. Reliable
30. Secretive
33. Sincere
42. Solemn
57. Tactful
12. Theatrical
27. Truthful
18. Unpredictable
54. Unsympathetic

* Numbers preceding scale items indicate the position of each
item on the BSRI.

Table 2: Percentage of Respondents By Sex-Role Group Stratified by
Academic Rank and Gender

 Masculine Feminine Androgynous

Overall: (n = 101)

Female (n = 51) 39.2% 23.5% 11.8%
Male (n = 50)) 24.0 34.0 20.0

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 10.0 30.0 30.0
Male (n = 18) 16.6 27.8 27.8

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 54.2 16.7 8.3
Male (n = 21) 28.6 38.1 14.3

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 35.3 29.4 5.9
Male (n = 11) 27.3 36.4 18.2

 Undifferentiated Total

Overall: (n = 101)

Female (n = 51) 25.5% 100%
Male (n = 50)) 22.0 100

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 30.0 100
Male (n = 18) 27.8 100

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 20.8 100
Male (n = 21) 19.0 100

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 29.4 100
Male (n = 11) 18.2 100

Table 3: ANOVA Results

 Academic Rank

 F-Ratio p
Females:
 Femininity 0.778 .465
 Masculinity 0.258 .773
Males:
 Femininity 3.170 .051 *
 Masculinity 1.274 .289

* significant at p = .10 level

Table 4: Sex Score Means Stratified by Academic Rank and Gender

 Full Assoc. Ass't.
 Professors Professors Professors Total
 (n = 28) (n = 45) (n = 28) (n = 101)

Overall Mean:

Femininity 4.6875 4.3100 4.2500 4.5500
Masculinity 5.2143 5.2322 5.1179 5.2000
Females: (n = 10) (n = 24) (n = 17) (n = 51)
Femininity 4.7350 4.0917 4.2971 4.2863
Masculinity 5.0150 5.3229 5.0412 5.1686
Males: (n = 18) (n = 21) (n = 11) (n = 50)
Femininity 4.6583 4.5595 4.1773 4.5110
Masculinity 5.3250 5.1286 5.2364 5.223

Table 5: Mean JDI Scores--Work
Stratified By Sex-Role Group, Academic Rank, and Gender

 Masculine Feminine Androgynous

Overall: (n = 101)

Female (n = 51) 46.05 38.75 40.00
Male (n = 50) 35.50 40.59 37.80

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 42.00 39.00 42.00
Male (n = 18) 31.00 39.00 35.40

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 45.69 37.50 34.50
Male (n = 21) 36.50 40.50 41.00

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 47.50 39.60 45.00
Male (n = 11) 38.00 42.75 39.00
Combined (n = 101) 42.09 39.83 38.63

 Undifferentiated Combined

Overall: (n = 101)

Female (n = 51) 36.69 41.24
Male (n = 50) 39.27 38.52

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 36.00 39.30
Male (n = 18) 43.20 37.83

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 36.60 41.50
Male (n = 21) 36.00 38.57

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 37.20 42.00
Male (n = 11) 36.00 39.55
Combined (n = 101) 37.88 39.89

Table 6: Mean JDI Scores--Supervision
Stratified By Sex-Role Group, Academic Rank, and Gender

 Masculine Feminine Androgynous

Female (n = 51) 34.20 36.50 39.50
Male (n = 50) 40.00 46.06 35.10

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 51.00 41.00 51.00
Male (n = 18) 44.00 47.40 34.80

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 36.00 30.00 16.50
Male (n = 21) 39.50 46.88 41.00

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 27.50 39.00 51.00
Male (n = 11) 37.00 42.75 27.00
Combined (n = 101) 36.38 42.10 36.75

 Undifferentiated Combined

Female (n = 51) 40.85 37.06
Male (n = 50) 39.00 40.86

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 36.00 43.50
Male (n = 18) 37.80 40.67

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 39.60 34.13
Male (n = 21) 43.50 43.29

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 45.00 37.41
Male (n = 11) 33.00 36.55
Combined (n = 101) 40.00 38.94

Table 7: Mean JDI Scores--Co-Workers
Stratified By Sex-Role Group, Academic Rank, and Gender

 Masculine Feminine Androgynous

Overall: (n = 101)

Female (n = 51) 31.65 28.25 31.50
Male (n = 50) 27.75 37.94 34.80

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 42.00 34.00 32.00
Male (n = 18) 29.00 39.60 30.00

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 30.69 27.75 27.00
Male (n = 21) 25.50 38.25 40.00

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 32.00 25.20 39.00
Male (n = 11) 31.00 35.25 39.00
Combined (n = 101) 30.19 33.93 33.56

 Undifferentiated Combined

Overall: (n = 101)

Female (n = 51) 34.62 31.59
Male (n = 50) 33.27 33.84

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 30.00 33.00
Male (n = 18) 30.60 32.67

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 34.80 30.75
Male (n = 21) 34.50 34.14

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 37.20 31.94
Male (n = 11) 37.50 35.18
Combined (n = 101) 34.00 32.70

Table 8: Mean JDI Scores--Promotion
Stratified By Sex-Role Group, Academic Rank, and Gender

 Masculine Feminine Androgynous

Female (n = 51) 21.30 25.50 17.00
Male (n = 50) 16.50 22.59 20.40

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 18.00 22.00 24.00
Male (n = 18) 16.00 28.00 19.20

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 21.69 28.50 9.00
Male (n = 21) 13.00 18.75 24.00

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 21.00 25.20 12.00
Male (n = 11) 24.00 22.50 18.00
Combined (n = 101) 19.50 23.79 19.13

 Undifferentiated Combined

Female (n = 51) 21.23 21.76
Male (n = 50) 18.00 19.68

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 18.00 21.00
Male (n = 18) 13.20 19.67

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 20.40 21.50
Male (n = 21) 21.00 18.29

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 24.00 22.59
Male (n = 11) 24.00 22.36
Combined (n = 101) 19.75 20.73

Table 9: Mean JDI Scores--Pay
Stratified By Sex-Role Group, Academic Rank, and Gender

 Masculine Feminine Androgynous

Female (n = 51) 34.20 25.00 32.00
Male (n = 50) 28.50 34.59 24.60

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 36.00 08.00 36.00
Male (n = 18) 36.00 27.60 20.40

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 33.69 19.50 27.00
Male (n = 21) 27.00 39.75 24.00

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 35.00 39.60 30.00
Male (n = 11) 24.00 33.00 36.00
Combined (n = 101) 32.06 30.62 27.38

 Undifferentiated Combined

Female (n = 51) 33.23 31.53
Male (n = 50) 30.00 30.12

Full Professors:

Female (n = 10) 26.00 24.60
Male (n = 18) 38.40 30.00

Associate Professors:

Female (n = 24) 37.20 31.50
Male (n = 21) 21.00 30.29

Assistant Professors:

Female (n = 17) 33.60 35.65
Male (n = 11) 27.00 30.00
Combined (n = 101) 31.75 30.83