Gender and Ethical Orientation: A Test of Gender and Occupational Socialization Theories

E. Sharon Mason Peter E. Mudrack

ABSTRACT. Ethics and associated values influence not only managerial behavior but also managerial success (England and Lee, 1973). Gender socialization theory hypothesizes gender differences in ethics variables whether or not individuals are full time employees; occupational socialization hypothesizes gender similarity in employees. The conflicting hypotheses were investigated using questionnaire responses from a sample of 308 individuals. Analysis of variance and hierarchical regression yielded unexpected results. Although no significant gender differences emerged in individuals lacking full time employment, significant differences existed between employed women and men, with women appearing "more ethical". While occupational socialization predicts an interaction between employment status and gender, these group differences were opposite to those predicted. An implication for the two theories and the current conflicting research support is that these commonly used theories may be of limited usefulness. Some alternative concepts are proposed.

Is it okay for a supervisor to ask an employee to support someone else's incorrect viewpoint, to overlook someone else's wrongdoing, or to falsify a document? Should an employee lie to protect the company? Should a c o m p a n y engage in "shady practices" if competitors do so? While individuals clearly vary in their responses, the question o f w h e t h e r or not there are systematic

E. Sharon Mason is an Assistant Professor of organizational behavior and human resource management in the Faculty of Business, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario. Peter E. Mudrack is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Organization Sciences at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

gender differences in responses is an important one. Value and ethical systems influence not only managerial behavior but also managerial success (England and Lee, 1973). O n e perspective is that w o m e n in general hold different values and ethical views than m e n so gender differences in responses will exist. Women are typically socialized into c o m m u n a l values reflecting a concern for others, selflessness, and a desire to be at one with others; m e n are typically socialized into agentic values involving self-expansion, self-assertion, c o m p e t e n c e and mastery (Eagly, 1987). These different sets o f values lead m e n and w o m e n to differ in their perceptions o f individuals, groups, and situations and to resolve moral dilemmas differently (Gilligan, 1982). In general, w o m e n see themselves as belonging to an interpersonal network where the key task is to be responsible and caring to maintain the network o f relationships, while m e n tend to reason their way through moral dilemmas, referring to a hierarchy o f rights and attempting to be fair (Bussey and Maughan, 1982; Gilligan, 1982; Huston, 1983). Research concluding the existence o f gender differences in ethical or moral behaviour (cf. B e u t e l l and Brenner, 1986; Manhardt, 1972; R e u g g e r and King, 1992; Walker et al., 1982) generally attributes the differences to the differential socialization o f w o m e n and m e n into societally prescribed gender roles. However, there is also a substantial body o f research w h i c h points to overall similarities between m e n and w o m e n in ethics, values, and associated behaviours, attributed to occupational or o n - t h e - j o b socialization. This socialization takes place in adulthood (as compared to gender socialization w h i c h originates in childhood)

Journal of Business Ethics 15: 599-604, 1996. 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

600

E. S. Mason and P. E. Mudrack Method Sample As part of a larger study, the authors surveyed 308 individuals, 187 m e n and 121 women, in classroom settings at two universities. Ninetyseven graduate business students (32 women, 65 men) were surveyed at a large urban university located in the American midwest, while 211 undergraduate business students (122 men, 89 women) were surveyed at a relatively small regional university in Ontario, Canada. Mean age among the American respondents equalled 28.4 years, 65 worked full time at paying jobs, 19 indicated part-time employment, and 13 were not employed. In contrast, mean age among the Canadian respondents equalled 22.7 years and only 29 worked full time. O f the remaining 182 Canadians, 97 reported part-time employment and 85 did not work at a paying job. Surveys were administered in the classroom on a voluntary and anonymous basis, and all respondents were offered feedback on the meaning of their survey scores based on a respondentselected identification number. At least partly as a consequence, the response rate equalled 100 percent.

through such phenomena as occupationa ! training, exposure to organizational culture, and workplace factors such as rewards for competence and achievement. Several authors have argued that occupational experiences override socialized gender ideologies, resulting in similar ethical and value preferences for w o m e n and m e n (cf. Gomez-Mejia, 1983; Harris, 1990; Lacy et al., 1983, Posner and Munson, 1981). For the most part, these preferences seem to reflect the gender role of m e n with its ethical and moral behaviour. Gender and occupational socialization theories thus each have different hypotheses pertaining to the question of whether or not there are systematic gender differences in ethical constructs.

Hypotheses The general hypothesis o f gender socialization theory is that gender differences in ethical variables will exist whether individuals are employed full time or lacking full time employment experience. M e n are expected to respond in a "less ethical" fashion than w o m e n because of the more communal values into which w o m e n are socialized. Occupational socialization hypothesizes gender similarity in employees as a result of exposure to occupational socialization. In other words, scores on an ethics-oriented measure should be predicted by the interaction between gender and employment status, even after controlling for age. The purpose of the present study is to test the preceding conflicting hypotheses using an ethical orientation dependent variable in a sample comprised of both employees and non-employees. While most of the existing research uses either students who essentially lack exposure to occupational socialization or employees all of w h o m have such exposure, few (if any) studies combine employees and non-employees in one sample. Yet a broader sample would seem necessary to investigate the hypotheses of both gender and occupational socialization theories in a comparative and meaningful way.

Measure of ethical orientation The ten-item ethics measure developed by Froelich and Kottke (1991) appeared on the survey. These items explore respondent perceptions of conflict between generally accepted ethical standards and organizational interests, should these involve engaging in ethically questionable activities. Examples of statements include "There is nothing wrong with a supervisor asking an employee to falsify a document", and "An employee may need to lie to a coworker to protect the company". Respondents are in effect concurring that personal or social ethical principles such as obeying rules or telling the truth are subordinate to the organization's immediate welfare and well-being, and can be violated under certain circumstances. However, relative agreement with the survey items does not

Gender and Ethical Orientation

601

necessarily imply that such respondents are inherently "unethical" individuals w h o violate ethical norms with impunity. T h e y may be highly moral or ethical in broader societal terms but simply feel that employees are required to support their employing organizations unquestioningly. T h e implied acceptance o f potentially unethical activities nevertheless seems to suggest that agreement with the survey items is a "less ethical" response than is disagreement. A m o n g disagreeing respondents, a conflict b e t w e e n individual and organizational ethical standards exist. Within this group, organizational interests or direct supervisor requests are d e e m e d to provide insufficient justification to deviate from personal or social ethical principles. Yet it may be unrealistic to expect all disagreeing respondents to withstand any real or implied pressures to behave counter to their ethical values. Such individuals would seem likely candidates to experience the w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d ethical conflict faced by many organizational participants w h o report feeling obligated to compromise their own values and standards to advance their careers and to achieve company goals (Carroll, 1978; Lincoln et al., 1982). An existing ethics-oriented measure was used in this investigation to help rectify an apparent shortcoming prevalent in business ethics research. Studies in this domain often rely u p o n unique and idiosyncratic instruments which are rarely used more than once. At best, such a practice is inefficient. At worst, it impedes the systematic and integrated development o f empirical knowledge. T h e Froelich and Kottke measure was included here specifically because it seems applicable to a pervasive organizational and human problem (widespread ethical conflict) and shows considerable promise based on preliminary findings gathered from both employed and student samples (Froelich and Kottke, 1991). Perhaps more importantly for the present study, this measure does not appear biased in favor o f support for the predictions o f either gender or occupational socialization making it an appropriate measure for testing the hypotheses derived from these theories. Consistent with Froelich and Kottke (1991), items in the ethics scale were reverse-scored thus higher scores reflect greater

disagreement with the statements and a "more ethical" pattern o f responses.

Results

The mean ethics score in this sample was 50.20, S D = 9.29, (~ = 0.83, range = 10 to 70). In contrast, Froelich and Kottke reported a mean o f 54.8 ( S D = 12.9, 0~ = 0.89). Such high scores suggest an overall trend towards respondent disagreement with the survey items. T h e ethics scale also correlated modestly, but significantly, with respondent age (r = 0.16, p < 0.01). American respondents in the sample tended to score higher on this scale (M = 51.70, S D = 8.95) than their Canadian counterparts (M = 49.52, S D = 9.38). Ethics scores were also highest a m o n g full-time employed respondents (M = 51.14, S D = 9.22; M = 50.78, S D = 9.32; part-time employed; M = 48.63; S D = 9.20 not employed). However, oneway analysis o f variance could detect no significant differences across these employment categories (F(2,305) = 2.11,

n$).
As expected, m e n responded in a "less ethical" fashion (i.e., received lower scores on the ethics scale) than did w o m e n (men, M = 49.04, S D = 9.12; women, M = 52.01, S D = 9.20). The zeroorder correlation between ethics scores and respondent sex, a d u m m y variable coded as "1" for w o m e n and "2" for men, was -0.16 (p < 0.01). Table I provides a breakdown o f ethics scores by respondent sex and e m p l o y m e n t status. Unexpectedly, the widest gap between the scores o f w o m e n and m e n appeared in the full time employed respondents while the "not employed" group featured the narrowest gap. Correlational analyses point to a similar pattern o f findings. The zero-order correlations between ethics scores and respondent sex in each employment category are as follows: full time (r = -0.32, p = 0.001); part time (r = -0.12, ns); not employed r = -0.04, ns). W h e n controlling for respondent age and nationality, the resulting partial correlation coefficients between ethics scores and respondent sex reveal an even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d pattern o f differences: full time employed (r = -0.38,

602

E . S. M a s o n and P. E . Mudrack

TABLE I Ethical conflict scores by employment status and sex* Full-time employed Mean Women Men 55.22 49.03 S.D. 6.86 9.62 N 33 61 Part-time employed Mean 52.00 49.75 S.D. 8.70 9.77 N 53 63 Not employed Mean 49.17 48.32 S.D. 10.87 8.16 N 36 62

t(92) = 3.24, p = 0.002

t(114) = 1.30, ns

t(96) = 0.44, ns

* Higher score = Disagreement with items/"more ethical" response p < 0.001); part time employed (r = -0.13, ns); not employed (r = -0.03, p < 0.05). T h e possible interaction between gender and employment status and its predicted impact on ethics scores was tested using hierarchical regression analysis. Respondents indicating part-time employment were grouped with those not currently working, so that the relevant comparison was between respondents working full time and those not working full time. The assumption was made that occupational socialization was likely minimal for part time employees so they could be grouped with the " n o t employed" for purposes o f this analysis. Four demographic variables were first introduced into the regression equation for control purposes: age, nationality, sex, and employment status. The interaction term was then entered into the equation. As indicated in Table II, even though employment status alone fails to predict ethics scores, the interaction o f e m p l o y m e n t status with gender explains a significant increment o f explained variance. It should be emphasized once again that the nature o f the interaction is entirely opposite to what was predicted.
Discussion

In considering the hypotheses o f gender socialization and occupational socialization theories, the results are contrary to those predicted by either theory. G e n d e r differences in ethical orientation were found in the full time employed group (consistent with gender socialization but in opposition to occupational socialization) but were lacking in the not employed group (inconsistent with gender socialization). T h e significant interaction effect between gender and employment status similarly indicates gender differences a m o n g employees in ethics score and no differences in the not employed group. The gender differences found are in the expected direction with w o m e n scoring higher thus reflecting greater item disagreement and a "more ethical" response than comparable men. An examination o f this interaction and the nature o f the sample used (both employed and not employed individuals) seem to represent an extension o f previous research which may be a reason for the conflicts in findings and theories supported in the existing literature. An implica-

TABLE II Hierarchical regression Variable Age (1) Nationality (2) Sex (3) Employment status (4) (3) x (4) Beta 0.173 -0.038 -0.623 -0.379 0.591
R 2

R2 0.024 0.001 0.031 0.000 0.014

F(step) 7.614 0.182 9.865 0.084 4.461

P 0.006 0.670 0.002 0.772 0.036

0.024 0.025 0.056 0.056 0.070

Gender and Ethical Orientation

603

tion for the two most c o m m o n theories (gender and occupational socialization) informing research in this area is that the theories may be of limited or questionable validity. Are there theories or concepts that may be more helpful in explaining the current findings and perhaps more relevant than gender and occupational socialization in informing future research? While the cross-sectional design of this study is a limitation precluding causal conclusions, it seems reasonable to suggest that w o m e n choosing business careers may be ethically similar to m e n until they are exposed to the workplace at which point something happens that leads to a shift in their ethical bases towards a more communal focus. Kanter (1977) hypothesized that both m e n and w o m e n in low or blocked mobility situations will consider interpersonal relationships more important than agentic work factors. The pervasiveness of job sex segregation may be conducive to the development and perpetuation of systematically different structural factors encountered by w o m e n and m e n at work (Gutek, 1988). Thus any initial similarity in ethical orientations may be challenged and begin to diverge after time spent on the job. While Kanter's structural theory offers a partial explanation, it does not address the lack of gender differences in the "not employed" group. Also, there may be an implication that a shift to a more communal orientation is something of a "regression" and hence inherently negative. An alternative explanation, consistent with the findings o f this study, may exist. The gender similarity in the "not employed" group may be a result of self-selection, identification with the values o f the dominant (male) group, or some combination of these two. The intellectual focus of business schools may provide somewhat of a hiatus for some w o m e n from the starker realities o f organizational inequities. To the extent disconfirming evidence is encountered (see Fiske, 1990, for how gender role differences and a faculty double standard with respect to student gender continues in college), it may be ignored, rationalized or discounted to preserve the psychological security and comfort of existing beliefs. Consistent with the preceding argument, Heim and Golant (993) state that " . . . young

w o m e n entering the work force in the mid to late eighties assumed that the battle for equal rights had already been fought and won, that their contributions would be justly rewarded, their achievements gratefully acknowledged. Clearly, they were mistaken" (pp. 3-4). Since the mean age for the employee group in this study was 28, many of these w o m e n likely entered the workforce in the mid to late eighties. As w o m e n enter the workforce (especially nontraditional jobs such as management) and over time encounter experiences and situations where they are 'other', continued identification with the dominant paradigm may be painfully eroded and brought into question. This crisis (gradual or sudden) may be the catalyst for growth and exploration o f other possibilities. Thus, rather than a regression (as may be inferred from structural theory), these very difficult experiences become the impetus for questioning and growth beyond the existing dominant paradigm to one with more of a communal emphasis. In contrast, men's comfort with the existing paradigm is unlikely to be disturbed in this way, consistent with the similar ethical scores of employed and not employed men in this study. A limitation o f the present study is the somewhat h o m o g e n e o u s sample characteristics which limit the generalizability of the findings. It may be that gender differences were lacking in the "not employed" group because similar individuals, whether w o m e n or men, self-select into business school classrooms. However, the gender divergence in ethical orientation among employees in the sample becomes even more meaningful if indeed there was a possible bias towards homogeneity. Future research is needed to address the possibilities raised above for the unexpected findings in this study.

Acknowledgements The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting an equal contribution to the paper. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable research assistance of Janet Cripps, Brock University.

604

E. S. Mason and P. E. Mudrack

Different Levels in the Organizational Hierarchy of a Single Firm', Journal of Business Ethics 9, 741-750. Heim, P. and S. K. Golant: 1993, Hardballfor Women: Winning at the Game of Business (NAL/Dutton, New York). Kanter, R. M.: 1977, Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York). Lacy, W., J. Bokemeir and J. Shepard: 1983, 'Job Attribute Preferences and Work Commitment of Men and Women in the United States', Personnel Psychology 36, 315-329. Lincoln, D. J., M. M. Pressley, and T. Little: 1982, 'Ethical Beliefs and Personal Values of Top Level Executives', Journal of Business Research 10, 475-487. Manhardt, P.: 1972, 'Job Orientation of Male and Female College Graduates in Business', Personnel Psychology 25, 361-368. Posner, B. and J. M. Munson: 1981, 'Gender Differences in Managerial Values', Psychological Reports 49, 867-881. Ruegger, D. and E. King: 1992, 'A Study of the Effect of Age and Gender upon Student Business Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 179-186: Walker, J., C. Tausky, and D. Oliver: 1982, 'Men and Women at Work: Similarities and Differences in Work Values within Occupational Groupings', Journal of Vocational Behavior 21, 17-36.

References
Beutell, N. and O. C. Brenner: 1986, 'Sex Differences in Work Values', Journal of Vocational Behavior 28, 29-41. Bussey, K. and B. Maughan: 1982, 'Gender Differences in Moral Reasoning', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 701-706. Carroll, A. B.: 1978, 'Linking Business Ethics to Behavior in Organizations', SAM Advanced Management Journal 43, 4-11. Eagly, A. H.: 1987, Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation (Erlbaum, New Jersey). England, G. W. and R. Lee: 1973, 'The Relationship Between Managerial Values and Managerial Success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia', Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 411-419. Fiske, E. B.: 1990, 'Lessons: Even at a Former Women's College, Male Students are Taken More Seriously, a Researcher Finds', New York Times April 11, Living Arts Sec. Froelich, K. S. and J. L. Kotte: 1991, 'Measuring Individual Beliefs About Organizational Ethics',

Educational and Psychological Measurement 51,

377-383. Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge). Gomez-Mejia, L.: 1983, 'Sex Differences During Occupational Socialization', Academy of Management Review 26, 492-499. Gutek, B. A.: 1988, 'Sex Segregation and Women at Work: A Selective Review', Applied Psychology: An International Review 37, 103-120. Harris, J.: 1990, 'Ethical Values of Individuals at

Brock University, Faculty of Business, St. Catharines, O N L2S 3A1, Canada.