Xiang 03.PDF - Xiang Manabu Sakagami

8/12/2019 Xiang 03.PDF - Xiang Manabu Sakagami

1/13


2/13


3/13

3

INTRODUCTIONPublic accounting firms have consistently increased the range of services provided to clients. This increase in

specialized services has created a need for in-depth expertise in various areas. Consequently, personnel are no

longer as interchangeable as they once were (Abernathy, 1990; AICPA, 1989; Biggs, 1986). This coupled with

intense competition for talented personnel from the private sector suggest that public accounting may no longer have

a sufficient supply of competent employees to replace those who choose to leave. (Hooks and Cheramy, 1994).

Historically, accounting has been a male dominated profession. However, within the past fifteen years, the

number of women has steadily increased until they currently make up more than fifty percent of the entry-level

talent pool (AICPA, 1996; AICPA, 1980). At a time when women comprise the majority of entry level personnel

and market imperatives suggest that it is critical for firms to retain their experienced personnel, Hooks and Cheramy

(1994) determined that gender-related turnover differences are most prevalent in the senior-supervisor and manager

ranks of the larger CPA firms. It appears that attracting and retaining the brightest women is one of the key

challenges facing public accounting firms.

Fifty-five percent of the respondents to a recent American Women's Society of Certified Public Accountant's

(AWSCPA) membership survey report leaving their job because they had reached or would reach an invisible

barrier to career advancement. Seventy-five percent of these respondents were from public accounting firms

(Heaton and Simmons, 1994). While some progress has been made, women are still under-represented at the

highest levels in CPA firms. The most recent data available from the AICPA (1996) reports that women comprise

only seven percent of the partners in firms with more than ten members.

Recently, female senior managers have been promoted to partner in numbers proportionate (twenty-six

percent) to their representation in the senior manager ranks. Women, however, are not being promoted to partner

in numbers representative of their total presence in public accounting because of their disproportionate turnover at

the senior-supervisor and manager level (Hooks and Cheramy, 1994). There is no obvious reason why women are

not retained at rates comparable to their male colleagues. One possible factor explored by prior research is whether

women have personality profiles that are different from their male counterparts (Earnest and Lampe, 1982; Johnson

and Dierks, 1982; Maupin, 1990; Lehman, 1990; Davidson and Dalby, 1993; Maupin, 1993).

Prior Research

A significant amount of prior accounting research about the influence of personality traits has primarilyfocused on identifying traits possessed by those persons in top managerial positions in public accounting firms

(Maupin, 1990; Maupin, 1993; Lehman, 1990). These traits have then been ascribed to manager and partner

positions. This results in an underlying assumption that these traits are inherent in the position, uniformly impact all

who seek promotion, and are free from gender bias. However, research has shown that many personality traits have

a sex-stereotype associated with them (Bem, 1974). It is important to determine whether the influence of sex-

stereotyped personality traits on advancement differs based on the gender of the individual exhibiting these traits.

Although the data are anecdotal, the case of Ann Hopkins is an excellent example of the impact of sex-

stereotyped personality traits on advancement in public accounting (Knapp, 1996). Even though Hopkins was the


4/13

4

top revenue generator of all partner nominees at Price Waterhouse, she was denied partnership because, among other

things, she was described as overbearing, too aggressive and as using foul language. Price Waterhouse granted

partnership to all other 87 nominees, all of them men and some of whom had been described in exactly the same

terms that provided the basis for denying Hopkins partnership. It appears that even though the quality of Hopkins'

work met the expectations for the partnership position, she was not promoted because her behavior was undesirable

for a female.

Developing an awareness about the influence of stereotypes is a vital step in eliminating behaviors or actions

based primarily on stereotypical views. Stereotypes are "deeply rooted, widely shared, remarkably resistant to

change" (Heilman et al, 1989, p. 939 ), and require significant mental energy to change (Heilman and Martell, 1986).

Gender schema theory suggest that some individuals encode and organize incoming information based on

stereotypical "pictures" of men and women (Schmitt and Millard, 1988), i.e., they evaluate behavior in terms ofwhether it is proper for a woman or proper for a man. Masculine and feminine stereotypes are often accepted as fact

because they are part of a socialization process that is not consciously questioned. As a result one may attribute sex-

stereotyped personality traits to an individual, or one may refuse to accept these personality traits in an individual,

based solely on the individual's gender.

Bem (1974) identified personality traits that have a sex-stereotype attached to them. A trait "qualified as

masculine if it was judged to be more desirable in American society for a man than a woman, and it qualified as

feminine if it was judged to be more desirable for a woman than a man" (Bem, 1974, p. 156). Heilman's (1989)

findings suggest that the sex-stereotyped personality traits identified by Bem (1974) continue to persist, and are

useful in understanding barriers to women's career advancement.

Maupin (1990) identified the sex-type (feminine, masculine, androgynous, or undifferentiated)[1]of 461

CPAs using the 60-item Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). Approximately twenty-five percent of all persons and

almost half of all women in this study were sex-typed feminine. Yet, all 47 partners in the study (13 women) were

classified as either masculine or androgynous. Based on her data, Maupin concluded that a majority of the

accountants in upper level positions of CPA firms display androgynous behavior patterns.

Lehman (1990) questioned Maupin's (1990) interpretation of the results. Lehman asserted that: "Maupin

misinterprets the data by concluding that androgynous behavior, not sex-typed behavior, corresponds with success ...

in the accounting profession" (p. 140). Lehman noted that females who exhibit feminine behaviors decrease at each

successive level until there are none at the partner level, even though almost fifty percent of the female audit juniors

were sex-typed feminine. Based on Maupin's data, Lehman concluded that: "_ for men and women CPAs, a

significant factor in career _ success is masculine sex-typed behavior" (p. 142). Lehman's interpretation also

focuses on identifying the traits possessed by partners.

In a later study, Maupin (1993) surveyed 372 public accountants to determine whether they believed that

women's inherent personality traits and behavior patterns or the nature of the work environment faced by women

was responsible for the scarcity of female partners. Maupin found that the large majority of male participants

attributed women's general lack of success in public accounting to women's inherent personality traits, while the

majority of the female participants attributed this to the nature of the work environment.


5/13

5

RESEARCH QUESTIONSPrior research has shown that certain personality traits or behaviorsare expected from persons who reach

upper-level positions in public accounting firms. It is implied that exhibiting these traits or behaviors will contribute

to advancement. The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether practicing accountants perceive that the influence

of sex-stereotyped personality traits on advancement differs based on the gender of the individual being considered

for advancement. The research questions examined in this paper are:

1. Does the influence of stereotypical feminine and masculine personality traits on advancement differ

based on the gender of the individual being considered for advancement?

2. Does the influence of stereotypical personality traits on advancement differ based on the gender of theindividual providing the rating?

METHODOLOGY

Questionnaire

A questionnaire with two forms was developed for this study. One form asked practicing accountants for

their opinions about the influence of selected personality traits on a woman's advancement (feminine questionnaire),

the other form asked for opinions about the influence of selected personality traits on a man's advancement

(masculine questionnaire).

The thirty-item short form BSRI, a refinement of the original sixty-item inventory, provided the basis for

the questionnaire developed for this study [2] (Bem, 1978). The BSRI short form consists of ten masculine, ten

feminine, and ten filler personality traits. An individual's sex type is determined based on their reponses to the series

of items in the inventory. The BEM has been used in numerous studies and has proven validity and reliability

(Schmitt and Millard, 1988; Ballard-Reisch and Elton, 1992). In developing the short form BSRI, Bem retained

the most desirable masculine and feminine personality characteristics from the long form BSRI (Bem, 1978). The

authors replaced three traits from the short form with the next three most highly correlated traits from the long form

BSRI because the replacement traits are considered more applicable to a business environment. The replacements

were as follows:

REPLACEMENT TRAITS: TRAITS REPLACED:

Does not use harsh language Tender

Loyal Affectionate

Cheerful Loves children.

Survey participants were asked to rate how they think these personality traits actually influence advancement. They

were instructed not to indicate what they think is fair or correct or how they think things should be. Participants

provided ratings using the following seven-point Likert scale:


6/13

6

1 very detrimental

2 moderately detrimental

3 slightly detrimental

4 neither detrimental nor beneficial

5 slightly beneficial

6 moderately beneficial

7 very beneficial.

Participants

Each audit and tax professional from nine local, regional, and national CPA firms located in a major

midwestern metropolitan area received one of the two forms of the questionnaire. Participants were informed that

they had been selected to complete one form or the other, but not both. Questionnaires were distributed to achieve

approximately equal distribution of the two forms of the questionnaire by gender and by position. For example, in

the total population of one hundred and eighty male managers, ninety received the feminine questionnaire and ninety

received the masculine questionnaire.

Eight hundred and twenty five questionnaires were returned for a 69 percent response rate; 814 were used

for analysis. As shown in Figure 1, response rates were approximately equal by gender and by position. The

decrease in the number of women relative to the number of men at the partner and manager levels reflects the

current practice environment.

"take in Figure 1"

Four hundred and six masculine questionnaires and four hundred and eight feminine questionnaires were

returned. The masculine and feminine questionnaires were approximately equal by position and by gender.

Analysis

Each of the ten feminine and ten masculine traits were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA. The main

effects were the gender of the questionnaire and the gender of the respondent. Results were considered significant

at the p < .01 level. This methodology determined whether the influence of stereotypical personality traits on

advancement differs based on the gender of the individual being considered for advancement (questionnaire gender)

and/or the gender of individual providing the assessment (respondent gender).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Anova Results

As shown in Table I, five of the masculine traits and two of the feminine traits are expected to have a

significantly different influence on a woman's advancement compared to a man's advancement. In addition,

women who responded to the survey rated three of the masculine traits and eight of the feminine traits differently

than the men who responded to the survey, indicating that men and women expect these traits to have a different


7/13

7

influence on advancement. An interaction effect between questionnaire gender and respondent gender was found for

3 masculine traits.

"take in Table I"

As shown in Table I, women who responded to the survey (female mean) consistently rated the influence of

feminine traits lower, i.e., less beneficial, than did men who responded to the survey (male mean). In addition, the

feminine traits were also consistently rated more beneficial for a woman's advancement (feminine mean) than for a

man's advancement (masculine mean).

Women who responded rated two of the three masculine traits with significant differences higher, i.e.,

more beneficial, than did men who responded. However, all masculine traits with significant differences were

rated higher, i.e., more beneficial, for a man's advancement than for a woman's advancement.

Futher examination of significant differences suggest that five masculine traits with significantdifferences (aggressive, assertive, dominant,forceful, andstrong personality) share a common attribute. These

traits appear to be controlling in nature, and were labeled controlling behaviors. The other five masculine traits are

not controlling in nature. The remaining traits with significant differences do not appear to share any common

attributes with any other trait with significant differences.

These results indicate that differences in the influence of personality traits on a man's advancement

compared to a woman's advancement may be due to the underlying essence of the trait. For example, as Table I

shows, the influence on advancement of traits, such as, independence, leadership, defending beliefs, taking a stand,

or taking risksin a business setting is similar for both men and women. This is demonstrated by the absence of

significant differences for these traits by questionnaire gender. However, results show that women may have to be

more cautious or more measured than men in circumstances where traits, such as, dominance,forcefulness,

assertiveness, aggressiveness, or exhibiting astrong personalityare appropriate. This is demonstrated by the

greater benefit expected for a man's advancement as compared to a woman's advancement.

Factor Analysis

The significant differences found for the controlling behaviors and the absence of differences for the other

masculine traits, along with the interactions found for three of the controlling behaviors, suggest that underlying

common factors not directly tested may be present. A factor consists of a group of personality traits that are highly

correlated among themselves, but have relatively small correlations with traits in a different group. Factor analysis

was performed to identify underlying common factors that may have a similar impact on advancement. Based on the

ANOVA results, the following data sets were used for factor analysis: (1) Male Respondents Masculine

Questionnaire, (2) Male Respondents Feminine Questionnaire, (3) Female Respondents Masculine

Questionnaire, and (4) Female Respondents Feminine Questionnaire. All thirty personality traits were

included in the analysis for proper protocol, but only factors that apply to the research questions are reported.

The factor pattern for women who responded to the survey is shown in Table II, and the pattern for men

who responded to the survey is shown in Table III. The factor patterns are highly similar for both male and female

respondents with regard to the nature and number of factors and the traits which comprise each factor. As shown

in Tables II and III, three underlying common factors (supportive behaviors, self-confident behaviors, and


8/13

8

controlling behaviors) were identified from the ratings about a man's advancement, and two factors (supportive

behaviors and masculine behaviors) were identified from ratings about a woman's advancement. These similar

patterns indicate that, even though men and women often rate the influence of personality traits differently, they are

observing the same phenomenon in the factor solutions. For this reason, the results of factor analysis of female and

male survey responses will be discussed together.

"take in Tables II and III"

As shown, the majority of the feminine traits loaded into one factor (supportive behaviors) for both the

feminine and masculine questionnaires. This indicates that the influence on advancement of supportive behaviors

within an organization is similar for both men and women.

As shown, the ratings of masculine traits provided about a man's advancement formed two distinct factors

(self-confident behaviors and controlling behaviors). However, the ratings of masculine traits provided about awoman's advancement formed only one factor (masculine behaviors). The women's factor (masculine behaviors)

included both men's factors (controlling behaviors and self-confident behaviors).

These results indicate that, for a man, there is a clear distinction between behaviors that are controlling in

nature and those that are indicative of self-confidence. However, for a woman, the distinction between controlling

and self-confident behaviors does not appear to exist. This lack of distinction between controlling and self-confident

behaviors for women could create significant issues in a practice environment. For example, a woman acting in a

self-confident manner may be viewed as being inappropriately controlling in a given situation, which may

negatively influence her advancement. These results also suggest that it is unlikely that a man's behavior would be

misperceived in a similar situation.

As shown, mean ratings from the survey indicate that masculine traits are expected to have a beneficial

influence on a woman's advancement. However, the results of factor analysis indicate that a women displaying

masculine traits will be perceived differently than a man displaying exactly the same traits. This suggests that pre-

conceived stereotypical expectations of a woman's behavior impairs the ability to distinguish between controlling

behavior and self-confident behavior.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that there is a difference in how stereotypical

personality traits influence a woman's advancement compared to a man's advancement. In

addition, men and women expect a difference on advancement from stereotypical personalitytraits.

Results also indicate that differences in the influence of masculine traits may be due to

the underlying essence of the trait. Significant differences in the influence on a man's

advancement compared to the influence on a woman's advancement were found only for

masculine traits that are controlling in nature. In all cases, men were expected to derive

greater benefit from these traits. There were no differences in the expected influence of

masculine traits that are indicative of self-confidence.

Even though masculine traits are generally expected to have a beneficial influence on a


9/13

9

woman's advancement, results indicate that, for a woman, there does not appear to be a clear

distinction between masculine traits that are controlling in nature and masculine traits that are

indicative of self-confidence. This lack of distinction does not appear to exist for men.

The results of this study have serious implications for women who seek to advance within

public accounting, and support the need for additional research to determine the impact of

differences related to personality traits on promotion and retention of women.


10/13

10

ENDNOTES

[1] A personality trait "qualified as masculine if it was judged to be more desirable in American society for a man

than a woman, and it qualified as feminine if it was judged to be more desirable for a woman than a man. ... the

BSRI characterizes a person as masculine, feminine, or androgynous as a function of the difference between his or

her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. A person is thus sex-typed, whether

masculine or feminine, to the extent that this difference score is high, and androgynous, to the extent that this

difference score is low." (BEM, 1974, p. 156).

[2] The BSRI was adapted and used with permission of the publisher.


11/13

11

REFERENCES

Abernathy, J. (1990) "The changing profession: An interview with John Abernathy", The CPA Journal,

January, pp. 36-42.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1989) "Planning for the future: A condensation of the Report

of the AICPA Strategic Planning Committee", Journal of Accountancy, September, pp. 57-66.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1996), The Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand

for Public Accounting Recruits-1996, AICPA, New York, N.Y.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1980), The Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand

for Public Accounting Recruits-1980, AICPA, New York, N.Y.Ballard-Reisch, D. and Elton, M. (1992) "Gender orientation and the Bem Sex role Inventory: A psychological

construct revisited", Sex Roles, Vol 27 No 5/6, pp. 291-306.

Bem, S.L. (1974) "The measurement of psychological androgyny", Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,

Vol 42, April, pp. 155-162.

Bem, S.L. (1978),Bem Sex Role Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.,Palo Alto, CA.

Biggs, S. Jr. (1986) "The changing economics of the public accounting profession", The Ohio CPA Journal,

Summer, pp. 11-18.

Davidson, R. A. and Dalby, T. J. (1993) "Personality profile of female public accountants", Accounting, Auditing,

& Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 81-97.

Earnest, K. R. and Lampe, J. C. (1982) "Attitudinal differences between male and female auditors", The Women

CPA, July, pp. 13-16; pp. 18-20.

Heaton, C. E. and Simmons, B. S. (1994) "All men are created equal but women aren't men", Massachusetts

CPA Review, Spring, pp. 19-21.

Heilman, M.E., Block,C.J., Martell, R.F., and Simon, M.C. (1989) "Has anything changed? Current

characterizations of men, women, and managers", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 74, pp. 935-942.

Heilman, M.E. and Martell, R.F. (1986) "Exposure to successful women: antidote to sex discrimination in applicant

screening decisions?", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol37, pp. 376-390.

Hooks K.L. and Cheramy S.J. (1994) "Facts and myths about women CPAs", Journal of Accountancy, October,

pp. 79-86.

Johnson, P.L.and Dierks, P. A. (1982) "What are women accountants really like?" Management Accounting,

March, pp. 25-28.

Knapp, M.C. (1996), Contemporary Auditing: Issues and Cases, West Publishing, Minneapolis.

Lehman, C.R. (1990) "The importance of being earnest: gender conflicts in accounting",Advances in Public Interest

Accounting, Vol3, pp. 137-157.

Maupin, R.J. (1990) "Sex role identity and career success of certified public accountants", Advances in Public

Interest Accounting, Vol 3, pp. 97-105.


12/13

12

Maupin, R.J. (1993) "How can women's lack of upward mobility in accounting organizations be explained?", Group

and Organization Management, Vol 18, June, pp. 132-152.

Schmitt, B.H. and Millard, R.T. (1988) "Construct validity of the BEM Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI): Does the

BSRI distinguish between gender-schematic and gender-aschematic individuals?", Sex Roles, Vol 19 No 7/8,

pp. 417-427.


13/13

13

FIGURE 1

Partners Managers Seniors Staff

n % n % n % n %

Females 8 80 91 82 128 74 97 50

Males 113 74 145 81 132 73 100 50

Documents

Xiang 03.PDF - Xiang Manabu Sakagami