Women Future Managers’ and Women Managers’ Women Future Managers’ and Women Managers’ Gender Identity ContentGender Identity Content

88thth International Conference on Social Representations International Conference on Social Representations

August 28th – September 1st, 2006, Rome

Taurida National University,

Ukraine, Simferopol

Ukrainian Association of

Organizational and Work Psychologists

Ukraine, Kyivasorgpsy@online.co

m.uaIrina Irina

BondarevskayaBondarevskayabondarevskaya@crimea.edubondarevskaya@ua.fm

Theoretical Basis of the researchTheoretical Basis of the research

Social Identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979); Social identity content partly covered by values and

attitudes (Skevington & Baker, 1998); System of values and attitudes (Rokeach, 1968, 1973); Gender identity as type of social identity (Jenkins, 1996); Types of gender identity: androgynous, feminine,

masculine, undifferentiated (Bem, 1979); Gender identity as agile and changeable plurality

(Koestner & Aube, 1995); Gender consists of gender identity (individual

component) and gender relations (structural component) (Ely, 1999);

Gender identity of women managers (Duane, 1998).

The major hypothesishypothesis of the research was focused on understanding gender identity type as reflecting attitudinal, priority values orientation in connection with gender relations in business, family and interpersonal attraction.

The objective objective of the research was to reveal differences in gender identity contents of women future managers and women managers which will enable to work out training for women, students of Management Department.

Methods: Methods: S. S. Bem’s inventory (gender identity type), M. Rokeach’s test (5-grade scale, factor analysis), modification of Lusher test (affective components of gender relations). Correlative analysis was used to reveal connections between femininity/masculinity and values for every type of gender identity. Then students of management department and bank managers with corresponding gender identity types were compared.

SampleSample

Subjects consisted of 115 university women students of Management Department Taurida National University and 52 women managers (middle level) in Privat Bank.

Women students of Management Department were of androgynous type of gender identity in 62%, feminine – 27%, masculine – 9%, undifferentiated – 2%.

Privat Bank managers were of androgynous type of gender identity in 69%, feminine – 19%, masculine – 8%, undifferentiated – 2%.

Thus androgynous and feminine subgroups were given final description and analysis.

Women Students of management departmentWomen Students of management department(factor analysis of values)(factor analysis of values)

women managerswomen managers (factor analysis of values)(factor analysis of values)

Androgynous women studentsAndrogynous women students

Feminine women studentsFeminine women students

Androgynous women managersAndrogynous women managers

Feminine women managersFeminine women managers

Statistically significant Statistically significant differencesdifferences between between

subgroups of students and women managerssubgroups of students and women managers

Androgynous women managers more than androgynous students are apt to manifest assiduity and responsibility (p<0,01); androgynous students more than women managers tend to perceive family neutrally as a social stimulus, deny beloved man as a social stimulus and consider love as future behavior program.

Feminine women managers tend to deny business partner (man) emotionally and perceive husband with emotionally neutral attitude (p<0,05).

Lusher test resultsLusher test results

Career: the majority of all subgroups subjects emotionally accept career, accept it as a social stimulus and relate to future and in less degree present behavior program.

Business partner (man): emotionally neutral attitude and emotional acceptance in feminine students’ subgroup. In androgynous managers’ subgroup - emotional acceptance. Androgynous students and feminine women managers show emotional denial more often than others, the most negative attitude is in the subgroup of androgynous students.

Family: majority of all subjects emotionally accept family, accept as a social stimulus and relate to the future behavior program. Emotional denial of family is the most frequent in the subgroups of students.

Husband: majority of students and androgynous women manages emotionally accept husband while majority of feminine women manager have emotionally neutral attitude toward husband. Among those who connect husband with denied behavior feminine women managers prevail.

Conclusions (1)Conclusions (1)

Androgynous students and women managers tend to combine traditionally feminine traits with traditionally masculine as well as behavior types.

Feminine students are orientated on family values and androgynous on materially successful life and creativity.

Androgynous women managers are orientated on family well-being and perfection of self and others being tolerant in achieving goals.

Feminine women managers consider self-realization at work to be highly important and strive for hardworking.

Conclusions (2)Conclusions (2)

It is possible to assume that androgynous type of gender identity promote reduction of inner conflict between gender and leadership roles, while feminine type of behavior can intensify this conflict.

Practical meaning of this studyPractical meaning of this study

Development of psychological training for women future managers taking into consideration gender identity type and its meaning content. Such training can be included in the main course of Management Department or can be optional.

Thank you …Thank you …