AOM Press Release -- Full Display

Women greatly underrate their standing with bosses and = other=20 workers, study finds

Medi= a=20 contact: Benjamin Haimowitz, (212) = 233-6170, HHaimowitz@aol.com

July = 2009

Do women handicap themselves on the job by chronically=20 underrating their standing with bosses and other = workers? New=20 research suggests so -- and lack of self-confidence isn't = the=20 problem, it finds.

"When asked to predict how they were rated by their = managers,=20 direct reports, and peers, women were significantly poorer = at=20 predicting others' ratings compared to men," according=20 to a study to be presented to the = annual=20 meeting of the Academy of Management (Chicago, = August=20 9-11. "[T]hese women were confident in their ability = (compared to=20 men) but were unaware of how others viewed them."

And their predictions invariably erred on the low side, = the=20 study makes clear. Women managers, the research = suggests,=20 believe that others rate them substantially lower than = they=20 actually do on a whole range of social and emotional=20 competencies essential to effective leadership.

The study, by Scott N. Taylor of the University of New = Mexico,=20 finds the difference between genders to be most striking = when it=20 comes to supervisors. Where men actually overestimated = slightly=20 how their boss would rate them, women underestimated their = ratings=20 on average by about 11 percent, with their mean = prediction=20 being 3.60 on a scale of five and the actual mean = rating=20 being 4.03 on a scale of five. So pronounced was the = difference=20 between genders that the likelihood that it was due to = chance=20 was less than one in a hundred.

Overall, Prof. Taylor found, the gender gap was = largest=20 for workers aged fifty and above. Men's predictions of how = others=20 would rate them -- bosses, peers, and direct reports alike = -- were=20 right on target, while women's estimates averaged 11 percent = below the actual rating (3.60 on a scale of five = compared to=20 4.03 on a scale of five).

"Something may be occurring in organizations such that, = the=20 older women become, the poorer they are at predicting the = ratings of=20 others," comments Taylor. "Or perhaps the difference between = older=20 and younger women in our sample is simply generational = rather=20 than something that developed over time. It should be = noted,=20 though, that even younger women tended to underestimate = others'=20 ratings by much more than their male contemporaries = did."

The striking differences between genders emerged = unexpectedly=20 out of a broader study on what is called multi-source = feedback=20 assessment (MSF), a management tool used by many companies = in which=20 an individual rates himself or herself and also = is rated=20 by others, typically by supervisors, subordinates, and = peers. The=20 251 research subjects consisted of five groups of = managers=20 -- 171 alumni of a university's MBA and executive doctorate=20 programs; 27 executives of an online travel agency; 18 = university=20 management staff; 25 executives of a delivery-truck = manufacturing=20 company; and 10 execs from unidentified organizations.

At the heart of the study was a standard survey = instrument that=20 measures nine elements of emotional and social competence = essential=20 to leadership -- communication ability, initiative, = self-awareness,=20 self-control, empathy, bond-building, teamwork, conflict = management,=20 and trustworthiness. Subjects were instructed to rate=20 themselves and to request that supervisors, subordinates, = and peers=20 rate them as well. Finally, each subject was asked to = estimate the=20 ratings made by two of these sources = chosen randomly.

While men's average predictions often = underestimated the=20 ratings of others, women's average predictions = invariably=20 underestimated them and were much further = from the=20 mark. For example, men predicted for themselves an overall = average=20 rating from others of 3.73 on a scale of 5, which was = 0.13 less=20 than the actual mean rating of 3.86. Women, in = contrast,=20 predicted an average overall rating for = themselves of=20 3.64, which was 0.38 below the actual mean rating of 4.02. = In=20 other words, the discrepancy between prediction and=20 actuality in this case was almost three times greater = for women=20 than it was for men.

What accounts for these results? "The most obvious = answer, lack=20 of confidence, can easily be ruled out," Prof. Taylor says. = "How do=20 we know? Women rated themselves just as highly as = men rated=20 themselves, an encouraging development from the norm of two = or three=20 decades ago."

Closer to the answer, he thinks, is that "women are so=20 accustomed to decades of being 'disappeared' and hearing = histories=20 of women whose contributions went unnoticed that they assume = these=20 conditions exist to the same extent today. As a result, = women in our=20 sample predicted others would not notice their work, when in = reality=20 others rated them higher than men on a whole range of = emotional=20 and social competencies basic to leadership."

Taylor believes that companies should make prediction = part of=20 the multisource-feedback process, which today consists = typically of=20 self-rating combined with being rated by others. "From the=20 standpoint of management development in general, predicted = ratings=20 would enable deeper, more open discussions than = traditional MSF=20 fosters," he says. "And what this study suggests is that = women would=20 particularly benefit."

The study, entitled "It May Not Be What You Think: = Gender=20 Differences in Predicting Emotional and Social=20 Competence," will=20 be among several thousand research reports presented at the=20 Academy of Management meeting, to be held in=20 Chicago from August 9th to = 11th.=20 Founded in 1936, the Academy is the largest = organization in=20 the world devoted to management research and teaching. It = has close=20 to 19,000 members in 102 countries, including about 11,000 = in the=20 United States. This year's annual meeting will draw more = than 9,000=20 scholars and practitioners for sessions on a host of = subjects=20 relating to business strategy, corporate organization and=20 investment, the workplace, careers, technology development, = and=20 other management-related topics.

Media Coverage:: AOL Finance Daily. Glass ceiling: = Women=20 to blame?. (Saturday, August 15, 2009).; Associated=20 Press. Women underrate bosses' opinion of = them.=20 (Monday, August 10, 2009).; BusinessWeek.com. Women's = performance: A=20 perception gap?. (Monday, August 10, 2009).; SHRM Online. Women expect others = to rate=20 them low. (Friday, August 14, 2009).; The Globe=20 & Mail. The office: A weekly look at work=20 culture. (Monday, August 10, 2009).; Women on the Web. Study: Women=20 underestimate themselves in the workplace. = (Wednesday, August=20 12, 2009).; wsj.com. Women Underestimate = Their=20 Performance on Job. (Wednesday, August 05,=20 2009).