Menu

“A brief critical analysis of Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women by Chatman &amp

0 Comment

OReilly (2004), Academy of Management Journal, Vol.47, No.2, 193 208"male dominated work environment, while women were more likely to be democratic toward men when the work group was female dominated (Konrad, Winter, and Gutek, 1992). The authors note that previous studies have relied on information that was gathered in environments where there were very few instances of female presence (p. 194). The issue of female underrepresentation in the work groups has also been a concern for feminists and researchers for a number of years (Syed and Murray, 2008) (Francoeur et al. 2008). The authors extend this hypothesis to include environments that are male dominated, female dominated, exclusively male or female, and a balanced number of men and women. By adding these other factors the study has not only separated itself from previous research, but enabled the examination of the issue of group sex diversity from various angles while avoiding a focus on similarity-attraction predictions.
Chatman and O’Reilly put forth a study using deductive reasoning and a set of hypotheses that examine the relationship of men and women to the gender proportion of their work groups. The authors begin the study by examining general observations about gender in the work groups and go on to narrow their observations and previous research into a set of hypotheses. The first, hypothesis 1, is concerned with male and female preference for inclusion in higher status work groups and secondly, hypothesis 2a proposes that men and women in groups that are dominated by their own gender will be more committed to the organization. In addition those in groups that are dominated by their own gender will express a higher positive affect as proposed in hypothesis 2b. Lastly hypothesis 2c suggests that those in groups where their own gender is dominate will believe those groups are more cooperating than groups dominated by the opposite sex (p. 196).
The authors conducted a quantitative study examining 189 professionals of both genders who were surveyed about their beliefs