Sex-Role Orientation, Women as Managers, and Transformational Leadership Among Female Law Firm Partners and Subordin

1. Sex-Role Orientation, Women as Managers, and Transformational Leadership Among Female Law Firm Partners and Subordinates Doctoral Dissertation Defense Hearing Nathalie Lynch-Walsh Lynn University October 10, 2006

2. Introduction to the Problem • Almost 30% of attorneys in U.S. are female • Female law firm partners represent 17% of partners at major U.S. law firms • Shortage attributed to Glass Ceiling

3. Purpose of the Study • Sociodemographic variables in explaining SRES and WAMS • Sociodemographic variables, SRES, WAMS, manager/subordinate sex-role congruence, and job level in explaining GTL • Relationship between degree of nontraditional sex-role orientation and WAMS/GTL

4. Definition of Terms Attitude Toward Women as Managers (WAMS) (Independent Variable) Sex- Role Orientation (SRES) (Independent and Dependent Variable) Number of Children Living at Home Education Level Evaluation of Female Manager’s Transformational Leadership Ability (GTL) (Dependent Variable) Religiosity Age Job Level Political Affiliation Marital Status Race or Ethnicity Confounding Variables (Sociodemographic Characteristics)

5. Justification • Scant literature about the influence of factors other than gender on evaluations of female managers • Few studies conducted outside university settings • 29% (308k) of attorneys are women, but only 17% (9k) of major law firm partners are women • Cost of replacing associates > $300k

6. Review of the Literature Human Capital Model Systemic Model Biological/ Evolutionary Model Psychodynamic Opportunity Power Groups Sociopsychological Model Socialization Socio-Cultural Model Sex-Role Stereotypes Expectation States Theory Descriptive Prescriptive GLASS CEILING

7. Theoretical Framework Descriptive Sex-Role Stereotypes Prescriptive Queen Bee Syndrome Biological/ Evolutionary Model Expectation States Theory Traditional Homophily Sex-Role Orientation Socialization Socio-Cultural Model Nontraditional

8. Research Design & Population • Quantitative, Non-Experimental, Correlational, Online Survey • Target Population • Estimated 9,208 female law firm partners associates, paralegals, and legal secretaries from 1,601 firms (2004-2005 NALP online directory) • Accessible Population • Estimated 8,184 female law firm partners and subordinates

9. Procedures • Obtained permission to use scales • Designed online survey • IRB approval • Invitation e-mails sent BCC • Voluntary participation • Responses anonymous • 10-15 minutes to complete • No IP addresses tracked • Data encryption • Collected data for six weeks

10. Results & InterpretationsSample & Setting Characteristics

11. Multi-Stage Sampling • Planned two-stage, stratified random sampling • Stage 1: 1,423 firms stratified by size • Stage 2: Firms randomly selected based on projected initial sample of 2,000 law firm partners and 10% response rate • Actual sampling included 3rd stage to increase initial sample size to 2,000. Actual initial sample=2,306

12. SocioDemographics Sample by Occupation (n=489)

13. SocioDemographics Hollingshead Index of Social Position (n=487)

14. Sociodemographics Age (n=486); Mean=42.13 years Largest age group 36-45 years (35.2%)

15. Sociodemographics Marital Status (n=486) Total sample married (66.7%)

16. Sociodemographics Children living at home (n=484) No Children (Associates=73.4%)

17. Sociodemographics Race or Ethnicity (n=486) White (88.7%)

18. Sociodemographics Religiosity (n=487)

19. Sociodemographics Political Affiliation (n=485) Democrat (53.2%); Republican (23.7%)

20. Comparative Analysis Comparison of Projected to Actual Sample of Female Law Firm Partners Per Stratum

21. Comparative Analysis Comparison of Projected Respondents to Data-Producing Sample

22. Comparative Analysis Comparison Between Target Population and Data-Producing Sample – Regional Locations Reported by Female Law Firm Partners (Managers)

23. Comparative Analysis Comparison of Race or Ethnicity for the Data-Producing Sample and National Averages of Female Lawyers and Paralegals

24. Results & InterpretationsInstrumentation

25. Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) • 25 items, 5-point Likert-type scale • Scores range 25 - 125 • Five dimensions (Marital, Parental, Socio-Interpersonal-Heterosexual, Educational, Employment) • This study (n=438) • Six factors, all items loaded .4 or higher • Cronbach’s alpha total scale= .8579 • Dimensions ranged .5357 to .7491

26. Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) • Mean Score, Total Sample=112.47; SD=9.29

27. Sex-Role Orientation • Associate attorneys most nontraditional (96.6%)

28. Subordinates’ Perception of Managers’ Sex-Role Orientation (MSRO) • Nontraditional=66.4% (Total Sample)

29. Women as Managers Scale (WAMS) • 21 items, 7-point Likert-type scale • Three factors (general acceptance of women managers, feminine barriers, managerial traits) • This study • Six factors, all but one item loaded .4 or higher • Cronbach’s alpha total scale=.8068 • Factors ranged .6328 to .7191

30. Women as Managers Scale (WAMS) • Mean Score, Total Sample=133.61; SD=11.41

31. Global Transformational Leadership (GTL) scale • 7 items, 5-point rating scale • Scores range 7 to 35 • One factor • This study (n=439) • One factor, all items loaded .614 or higher • Cronbach’s alpha=.9228

32. Global Transformational Leadership (GTL) scale • Manager mean score=30.75; total subordinate=28.32

33. Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 Manager/ Subordinate Sex-Role Orientation (SRES) (Trad - NonTrad) Manager/ Subordinate Attitude Toward Women as Managers (WAMS) Manager/ Subordinate Evaluation of Female Managers (GTL) RQ1 • Sociodemographic Characteristics • (Sociodemographic Profile) • Continuous: • #of children living at home • respondent age • education level • occupational level • social status level • Categorical • marital status • ethnicity • religiosity • political affiliation RQ2 RQ3

34. Research Question 4 Manager Sex-Role Orientation (SRES) Traditional - Nontraditional) Managers’ Self-Evaluation (GTL) • Manager Sociodemographic Characteristics • (Sociodemographic Profile) • Continuous: • #of children living at home respondent age • education level • occupational level • social status level • Categorical: • marital status • ethnicity • religiosity • political affiliation RQ4 Manager Attitude toward Women as Managers (WAMS)

35. Research Question 5 Types of Manager/ Subordinate Pairs Sex- Role Orientation T/NT, T/U, NT/NT, NT/U • Subordinate • Sociodemographic Characteristics • (SocioDemographic Profile) • Continuous: • #of children living at home • respondent age • education level • occupational level • social status level • Categorical: • marital status • ethnicity • religiosity • political affiliation Subordinate-perceived MSRO (Trad- NonTrad) Subordinate Job Level Subordinate (SRES) (Trad-Nontrad) RQ5 Subordinate Attitude toward Women as Managers (WAMS) Subordinate Evaluation of Female Managers (GTL)

36. Hypotheses Subordinate-perceived MSRO Traditional- Nontraditional Subordinate (SRES) Traditional- Nontraditional Manager (SRES) Traditional- Nontraditional Sex-Role Orientation (SRES) Nontrad MSRO/ Degree of Sub Nontraditional SRES Paired Sex-Role Orientation (Mgr/Sub) T/U, T/NT, NT/U, T/NT Trad MSRO/ Degree of Sub Nontraditional SRES H1 H2 H3 Subordinate Rating of WAMS Subordinate GTL Rating of Managers Manager Rating of WAMS H4 Attitude Toward Women as Managers (WAMS) Evaluation of Female Managers (GTL) Manager Self–Ratings (GTL)

37. Limitations • Reverse-coded items • MSRO items • Online survey format • Indirect access to subordinates • Self-selected data-producing sample • Political affiliation coded as a categorical variable • Majority of sample=nontraditional • No pairings of actual mgr/sub • Multiple regression

38. Implications for Theory & Practice • Inconsistencies between SRES dimensions (employment vs. social) • Refinement of Sociocultural Model • Changes to public policy • Number of nontraditional female law firm partners will likely increase • Transformational leadership behavior • Pairing partners with compatible employees (sex-role congruence)

39. Implications for Theory & Practice • Training to increase acceptance of female leadership • Monitor manager/subordinate evaluations for substantial ratings discrepancies • Improvements to Title VII protection from sex discrimination • Increased diversity initiatives at law firms

40. Conclusions • Associates may have experienced different socialization—sociocultural model • Sample and setting characteristics consistent with target and national statistics • Social roles responses reflect descriptive stereotypes • MSRO measurement of traditional vs. nontraditional may have forced a choice

41. Conclusions • WAMS scores almost identical to 1993 sample—impact of continued shortage of women managers • Instrumentation reliability and validity • GTL vs. SRES and WAMS • Influence of socialization (religiosity and political affiliation) on SRES and WAMS • Race or ethnicity and SRES

42. Recommendations for Future Study • Onsite surveys or employer-provided contacts • Direct comparisons between manager and subordinates, or improved MSRO • Use of field, rather than student samples • SRES as a multidimension, rather than unidimensional, instrument • Coding variables as scaled items • Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)