Gender Roles, Workforce Composition, and Management Style: … · Gender Roles, Workforce...

Gender Roles, Workforce Composition, and Management Style: Female Commanders and Policy Decisions in Police Organizations

Jill Nicholson-Crotty Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs

University of Missouri 119 Middlebush

Columbia, MO 65211 573-882-2320

[email protected]

Abstract

Scholars have long debated whether men and women manage organizations, both public and

private, differently. This work has arrived at varied conclusions regarding the differences that exist

and the factors that may condition such differences. One strain of this research suggests that women

may manage more like men in male-dominated organizations. Drawing on Social Role Theory, this

study develops the opposite expectation that female managers may actually adopt a more feminine

management style when they manage primarily men. More specifically, it argues that female

managers simultaneously occupy both gender and organizational roles when leading and that they

may be penalized for violating the former when they adopt an aggressive masculine style. It

hypothesizes that women will seek to minimize this gender role conflict by adopting a more

participatory and inclusive style than male counterparts when managing male-dominated

organizations. It offers the expectation that the differences between female and male managers will

diminish as the proportion of female employees increases. I test these expectations in analyses of a

sample of 273 police organizations drawn from across the United States in the year 2000.

1

In 2004, women were named as the Chiefs of Police in 4 major U.S. cities including Boston,

San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Detroit. The appointment of 4 women in the same year to the top

jobs in major metropolitan departments prompted the Associated Press to predict a ―shifting

paradigm in policing – from an emphasis on a paramilitary structure to one more reliant on

communication and community relations‖ (Tresta 2004). The AP’s speculation about the

consequence of these high profile appointments betrays a very old and very durable assumption

about female leaders—namely that they manage organizations in a fundamentally different fashion

than their male counterparts.

Assumptions about the differences between male and female managers have persisted in-

part because of ingrained gender stereotypes, but they also survive because the scholarly literature on

the management of public (and private) organizations has not offered a definitive answer regarding

any gender differences that may exist. A significant number of studies find that the differences in the

styles or effectiveness of male and female managers are relatively inconsequential (See Eagly et al.

1995 for a review). Alternatively, some research does find substantial differences in the leadership of

men and women, demonstrating that the latter adopt more interpersonal styles, are more democratic

or participative in their management techniques, or have higher levels of rule abidance, among other

things (see for example Gilligan 1982; Powell 1993; Hatcher 2003; Portillo and DeHart-Davis 2009).

In an attempt to reconcile findings of difference and similarity, a prominent line of research has

focused on the ways in which the culture and structure of organizations accentuate or obscure

differences between male and female managers (See for example Bass 1990; Eagly and Johannesen-

Schmidt 2001).

This study builds on this third tradition by exploring the ways in which the gender of

subordinates changes the context of leadership and, consequently, the ways in which women

2

manage public organizations. The idea that female leadership styles might be conditional on the

gender make-up of their workforce is implied in existing work on gender and management (see for

example Kanter 1977; Dolan 2000), which generally expects that women will manage more like men

in male-dominated organizations. The assumption being that they will do so in order to avoid

organizational role conflict arising from employee expectations that equate the manager role with

stereotypically masculine characteristics. Interestingly, however, direct empirical tests of this

assumption are rare (though see Gardener and Tiggeman 1999).

Drawing on Social Role Theory (see Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001), this paper argues

that the focus on organizational role behavior in previous work has ignored the gender role that

female managers must simultaneously occupy when leading an organization. Research suggests that

women may be penalized for violating these gender role expectations, particularly in the assessments

of male employees, when they adopt an aggressive masculine style (Eagly et al. 1992). This paper

develops this argument, ultimately drawing a testable implication that runs counter to the existing

literature. It suggests that female public managers will adopt more feminine styles when managing a

predominately male workforce and become less distinguishable from their male counterparts as the

proportion of female personnel increases.

The paper tests that argument in an analysis of women in high-level management positions

in large police organizations across the Unites States. Specifically, it explores whether the proportion

of women in leadership positions is associated with more participatory management, more employee

discretion, and other factors often attributed to a more feminine management style. The results

suggest that female leadership of police organizations does correlate with these characteristics, but

only in those organizations with relatively few female sworn officers. As the proportion of women

line personnel increases, female led organizations become indistinguishable from those led by men.

3

Literature on Differences between Male and Female Managers

As noted above, the scholarly literature has reached rather mixed conclusions regarding the

differences between male and female managers in both the public and private sectors. This literature

is vast and difficult to treat comprehensively in this setting. As such, this section provides an

illustrative, though admittedly incomplete, review of work that 1) argues for real distinctions

between male and female managers, 2) suggests few meaningful differences between men and

women, and, finally, 3) examines the factors that may condition gender differences.

Feminist critiques of bureaucracy provide a theoretical foundation for expecting differences

in the management styles of men and women. Generally speaking, these works emphasize the

authoritative, patriarchal, and depersonalizing nature of hierarchical structures, with special attention

to the deleterious consequences of such structures for women in an organization (See for example

Fergeson 1984; Iannello 1992; Acker 1990). Taken together these works imply that women will

manage differently because the replacement of traditional male leadership styles and structures with

those emphasizing participation, power sharing, consensus, connection, and empowerment, is the

most likely way for women to succeed (Britton 2000, 422). Popular (and primarily anecdotal or

personal) accounts of leadership targeted at practitioners similarly assert that that female leaders,

compared with male leaders, are less hierarchical, more cooperative and collaborative, and more

oriented to enhancing others’ self-worth (see for example Book 2000; Rosener 1995).

Some social scientific analyses of management have borne out these expectations. Research

has suggested that, though the differences are small, women are more likely to adopt a democratic or

participatory style of leadership (Eagly and Johnson 1990; Bass and Aviolio 1991). Previous work

also indicates that women may be more inclined to the development of cooperative relationships

4

and interactive styles of management (Riger 1993; Burke and Collins 2001).1 Women appear to be

better suited to ―transformational‖ leadership styles, where managers establish themselves as role

models and use trust and confidence to induce subordinates to follow (see Bass 1985; Eagly et al

2003).2 In public sector specific research, authors have uncovered differences in ―task-oriented‖

management behaviors of principals (Eagly, Karau, Johnson 1992). They have also suggested that

female managers in municipal governments spend less time on internal management and networking

activities than do their male counterparts (Jacobsen et al 2008), while female superintendents engage

in less interaction with subordinates and less external networking relative to men (Meier, O’Toole,

and Goerdel 2006).

Alternatively, a large body of scholarly work on the leadership behaviors of men and women

has concluded that few meaningful distinctions exist. Kanter (1977) was among the first to suggest

that any observed differences are likely a function of the different positions within organizations

occupied by men and women. Thus, what appear like distinct management styles are actually an

artifact of the organizational structure, which tends to place women in less powerful positions than

men. Narrative reviews of select works from the gender and management literature have typically

reached similar conclusions (See Nieva & Gutek 1981; Bass 1981; Bartol and Martin 1986). Studies

suggest that, while men may be perceived as more effective (Bass 1990), there is no systematic

evidence that men and women differ on actual metrics of effectiveness (Hollander 1992; Powell

1993). Eagly and Johnson (1990) conclude that, while experimental studies often reveal stereotypic

differences between the genders, organizational studies of actual leaders suggest little difference in

style, other than the tendency of women to be slightly more democratic.

1 Though see Eagly, Karau, and Johnson (1992) for the finding that women and men do not differ on measures of

interpersonal management. 2 Though see Mandell and Pherwani (2003) for the conclusion that women are not more likely to be transformational

managers.

5

There are a couple of bodies of work in gender and management which offer possible

reconciliation between competing findings of similarity and difference. Contingency theory suggests

that leaders' effectiveness depends on the interaction between their individual leadership style and

the needs of the organization or position (see reviews by Bass 1990; Yukl & Van Fleet 1992). If men

and women have consistently different leadership styles, their effectiveness may be a function of the

type of position they occupy. The second line of conciliatory research recognizes that managers

simultaneously occupy multiple roles when leading. More specifically, Social Role Theory suggests

that leaders occupy roles defined by the organization and by their genders, or at least by beliefs

about the typical attributes of men and women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Eagly &

Johnson 1990; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman 2000) and that the genders may behave differently when

there is a disconnect between the expectations arising from these two roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002;

Eagly et al 2003). This argument will be explored in more detail in subsequent sections.

Organizational Roles, Gender Roles, and the Impact of Workforce Gender

Literature on the management of both public and private organizations reaches very mixed

conclusions about differences in the styles and effectiveness of male and female leaders. This section

develops the argument that the gender make-up of the workforce may help to predict those

differences. Before turning to that theoretical argument it is important to recognize that the idea that

women may behave differently in organizations with different gender compositions is not new.

Theoretical and empirical arguments regarding tokenism offer related expectations regarding the

impact of peer-group composition on the behavior of women in organizations. Kanter (1977) notes

that the achievement and satisfaction of females is lower in male-dominated work groups because

token women often come under greater scrutiny, experience isolation, and get pigeon-holed into

stereotypical roles that undermined their status. A large body of work has confirmed these assertions

6

in both public and private settings (see Spangler, Gordon, and Pipkin 1978 Ott 1989; Krimmel and

Gormley 2003; Yoder and McDonald 1998)

Most relevant to this study, authors have also suggested that the gender composition of the

organization may influence the leadership styles of women. These works commonly emphasize that

employees, particularly men, expect occupants of leadership roles to have characteristically

masculine traits (Powell & Butterfield 1994; Schein & Davidson 1993; Deal & Stevenson 1998).

Authors have suggested that, in order to minimize the organizational role conflict that may arise

when a woman occupies such a position, female managers may adopt a more masculine style in

male-dominated organizations. Empirical tests of this assertion have, however, produced mixed

findings. For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) find that, across the studies in their meta-analysis,

an increase in the proportion of male subordinates did reduce the differences between male and

female managers on interpersonal versus task-oriented management styles, but actually correlated

with an increase in the likelihood of female manager’s adopting a more democratic style. Gardiner and

Tiggemann (1999) similarly find that women were more likely than men to use interpersonal styles in

female dominated organizations, but not in those where the bulk (>85%) of employees and

managers were male. Their study does not, however, test for differences in democratic or

participative management styles in these organizations.

This empirical evidence is not strong enough to justify a simple acceptance of the assertion

that women will adopt more masculine management styles in male-dominated organizations.

Moreover, it is important to gain a better understanding of the ways in which the gender of the

workforce influences female managers because it may help to reconcile long standing questions

about the differences, if any that exist between male and female managers. This section presents the

argument that the focus on organizational roles ignores the importance of gender roles, which

female managers simultaneously occupy. More specifically, it draws on Social Role Theory, and

7

particularly ideas of role incongruity, to develop the expectation that female leaders will work to

reduce gender role conflict by adopting more feminine management styles and policies when

working in male dominated organizations.

As noted above, Social Role Theory assumes that both leadership and gender roles influence

the behavior of managers and help to explain differences between male and female styles and

effectiveness (see Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Eagly & Johnson 1990). Leadership roles are

defined as the shared expectations placed on managers by virtue of their formal position in the

organizational hierarchy. These are similar to social role expectations placed on persons who occupy

specific social positions (see Biddle 1979). Gender roles, alternatively, are the expectations that apply

to a person based on their socially identified sex or the characteristics that members of the society

assume persons of a given sex typically posses.

Role incongruity occurs when the expectations of simultaneously occupied leadership and

gender roles conflict or are in some way contradictory. Research suggests that such conflict most

often arises for female managers and can be traced to a host of sources. It can arise because the

qualities traditionally associated with the leadership role are more stereotypically masculine than

feminine (Powell 1993; O’Leary 1974). It can arise because of gender- or sex-role ―spill-over,‖ from

the broader society, where research suggests there are significant and persistent doubts about

women’s competence to lead (O’Leary 1974; Riger and Galligan 1980). This perspective suggests

that even when roles and expectations defined by an organization for a male and female manager are

identical, they may fill those roles differently because of external (and internalized) expectations

about their genders (Gutek & Morasch, 1982; see also Schein 2001). Role incongruity for women is

more likely to occur when they occupy leadership roles that are traditionally heavily male-dominated,

because these are most associated with masculine characteristics and produce the greatest violation

of gendered expectations (Eagly et al 1995; Gutek and Cohen 1987).

8

There are reasons to believe that a male dominated workforce may also contribute to

increased role incongruity for female leaders. When researchers began examining the potential

divergence between gender and manager stereotypes, evidence suggested that both men and women

associated successful leadership with typically male characteristics (Schein 1973). Eventually, studies

began to suggest, however, that women’s ascription of inherently male qualities to the leadership

role had diminished, but men’s stereotypic beliefs appeared stable (Brenner et al. 1989). Following

almost 30 years of research on the subject, Schein (2001: 684) concludes that ―men have continued

to see women in ways that are not complimentary vis-`a-vis succeeding in positions of authority and

influence.‖ The continued association of leadership traits with masculine characteristics among men

helps to explain evidence that male employees consistently evaluate female managers more critically

than their male counterparts (Eagly et al 1992; Sinclair and Kunda 2000).

Role incongruity, whatever the cause, can have a significant influence on the behavior of

female managers. When female leaders violate gender expectations, they may encounter prejudice,

which can include biased performance evaluations (Bass 1990). Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky (1992)

find that women leaders are judged more negatively, particularly by a male-dominated workforce,

when their management style is stereotypically masculine. Interestingly, research also suggests that

women may attempt to minimize role conflict by adopting a more feminine leadership style that

would better meet traditional expectations about female behavior (Eagly et al. 1995). This should be

particularly true in male dominated leadership roles because of the potential for very negative

reactions to women practicing an aggressive masculine style (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001).

I argue that the likelihood of role incongruity for female managers, and the probability that

they will minimize it by adopting more feminine leadership styles, should also be higher when they

are managing a male-dominated workforce. Returning to the original motivating question for this

study regarding the differences between male and female public managers, this suggests that a

9

woman might manage similarly to a male counterpart occupying the same position if her workforce

were sufficiently female, but would likely manage differently if her workforce were predominately

male. Distilling this into a specific testable hypothesis, I expect that:

Hypothesis 1: Women public managers will be associated with organizations that reflect more feminine leadership

styles than those led by male counterparts when the organization employs primarily men, but the organizations led by

the two genders will become less distinguishable as the number of female employees increases.

Exploring the Differences between Male and Female Leaders in Police Organizations

I test this expectation in an analysis of large police organizations around the United States.

These organizations are a useful place to test for the factors that may condition gender difference in

management behavior for a variety of reasons. First, they are among the most common of public

agencies, with more than 18,000 state, county, and municipal policing agencies spread throughout

the nation (Census of State and Local law Enforcement Agencies 2000). Additionally, there is

sufficient variation in female leadership and female employee density to allow gender differentiation

to be visible. In a representative sample of large police organizations in 2001, women made up

between 1 and 42% of sworn officers, and occupied between 0 and 34% of top command positions

(Lonsway et al 2002). Finally, police organizations are among the most hierarchical and traditionally

male dominated types of organization. Given evidence that both male and female managers are

socialized to adopt the expectations of their organizations very early in their careers (Feldman 1976;

Terborg 1977; Meier and Nigro 1974), these types of organizations should be the ones where gender

differences in leadership behavior are least likely to occur. This study expects differences under

some circumstances and the selection of police organizations biases against that result, providing a

stringent test of the hypothesis.

Data

10

The sample for the study consists of 282 police organizations surveyed by the National

Center for Women and Policing (NCWP) in 2000. The organization originally sent surveys to a

representative sample of 344 law enforcement agencies identified in by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics as having 100 or more sworn officers. The overall response rate was 82% and data were

weighted so that responses were representative in terms of both organization size and agency type.

The sample includes state police agencies, county sheriffs, and municipal police departments. While

these are all nominally police organizations, they obviously differ on a host of important

characteristics, including level of government, leadership selection, organizational structure, scope of

functional and geographic responsibility, and numerous others. Including all three agency types

offers both benefits and challenges. On the one hand, the different structures of these organizations

contributes to the generalizability of the findings, which is obviously a matter of concern given that

the analyses are being conducted only in police agencies. At the same time, however, the differences

across these organizations make it inappropriate to treat them as directly comparable in a statistical

model. In order to deal with this problem, I estimate fixed effects for agency type (i.e. state police,

county sheriff, and municipal police). This allows each type of agency to have its own intercept and

means that coefficients only reflect the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable

within organizational type. In other words, municipal departments are only being compared with

municipal departments, sheriff’s offices are only being compared with sheriff’s offices, and so on.

Data on the gender composition of policing organizations collected by the Center for

Women and Policing were merged with data from the 2000 Law Enforcement Management and

Administration Statistics (LEMAS) survey. The LEMAS survey is administered every 1 to 4 years by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics to the universe of large and a sample of small police organizations

around the nation. It collects detailed information about the size, composition, function, and

management of those organizations used the create all of the non-gender related variables discussed

11

below. Because the LEMAS includes the population of police organizations over 100 officers and

the Women and Policing Survey is drawn from that sample the overlap is almost perfect. I am

forced to drop two organizations because of missing data, leaving an analyzed sample of 280.

Dependent Variables

The most consistent finding of difference between male and female managers suggests that

the latter are likely to be more democratic and inclusive in their management styles (see for example

Eagly and Johnson 1990; Bass and Aviolio 1991). It is difficult to capture a concept like ―democratic

leadership‖ with a single indicator, so I instead take a multiple measures approach, modeling several

dependent variables that each capture some component of this idea. The first measures the density

of formally articulated standard operating procedures within the organization. Standard operating

procedures are typically used in organizations to limit discretionary decision-making and ensure

consistency in outputs across the organization (March and Simon 1958; Thompson 1967; but see

Feldman and Pentland 2003). A feminist approach to bureaucratic structure and operation suggests

that such limitations preference male characteristics and employees and, therefore, women should

prefer fewer formal rules and greater employee discretion (see Britton 2000). I argue that women

managing organizations with few female officers will adopt more feminine management styles in

order to minimize role conflict and should, therefore, maintain fewer formal standard operating

procedures than male counterparts. As with the other dependent variables, I expect that these

differences will decrease as the proportion of female employees increases. The actual dependent

variable utilized in this analysis is SOPs per officer, in order to normalize the measure across

organizations of different size, which are likely to have different needs regarding routinization. The

measure was again collected in the LEMAS survey.

12

The second dependent variable is a count indicator of the use of ―problem solving‖ policing

methods. A Community Policing model, which emphasizes more personalized policing and better

relationships between the police and the community, has replaced the traditional ―professional‖

model in many jurisdictions (Trojanowicz et al. 1998). Collaborative problem solving is an integral

theoretical component of community policing, but the actual use of the technique is far from

universal (see Skogan et al. 1999). In the sample of organizations analyzed herein, only 49%

encouraged problem solving projects and only 44% suggested that they had created problem solving

groups. When problem solving techniques are formalized by the organization, they encourage

members from different levels of the police organizations and key stakeholders in the community to

develop solutions to problems of crime, delinquency, etc…. In other words, problem solving groups

are an inclusive and participatory management technique. As such, I expect that organizations with

female managers and few female officers will be more likely to form such groups than those with

male managers. The differences between organizations led by men and women should diminish as

the number of female officers increases. The measure of problem solving groups was collected in

the LEMAS survey and is coded 0 for groups that do not encourage problem solving projects or

form groups for this purpose, 1 for those that do one of these things, and 2 for those organizations

that do both.

The third dependent variable is a count indicator of collective bargaining, coded 0 if neither

sworn or nonsworn personnel are able to collectively bargain, 1 if either of these groups have this

right, and 2 if both do. Research suggests that, under the right circumstances, collective bargaining

allows police and other public employees to influence not only pay and benefits, but also the rules

and operations of the organizations in which they work (See for example Ichniowski, Freeman,

Lauer 1989; Moe 2009). In other words, it is a mechanism for employee participation in

organizational governance. Based in the argument that they will be more likely to adopt a democratic

13

or inclusive style, I expect that women managers in organizations with few female officers will be

more supportive of collective bargaining than will their male counterparts. Alternatively, as the

percent of women in the organization increases, I expect those differences to diminish. The measure

was collected in the LEMAS survey. 57.1% of the organizations in the sample allow employees to

collective bargain

The final dependent variable is a count measure of network activity with stakeholder groups.

It ranges from 0 to 9 depending on the number of groups (i.e. advocacy organizations, public

agencies, youth groups, neighborhood associations, etc…) with which the police organization

regularly meets. I include the measure of networking because research suggest that such activities

can be an inclusive and boundary spanning management tactic (see Feldman et al. 2006; Provan and

Kenis 2007) and, therefore, might be associated with a more feminine management style.

Interestingly, however, recent work on gender and management has found no difference or that

men are slightly more likely to engage external networks than their female counterparts (Meier et al.

2006; Jacobsen et al. 2009). I suggest that this may be because they have not controlled for the

moderating impact of employee gender on managerial behavior. I expect that women will network

with stakeholder groups more than men when the organization is male dominated, but that the

distinctions will diminish as the number of female officers increases.

Independent Variables

The primary independent variables in this analysis capture female management of police

organizations, the number of female officers, and the interaction of these variables. Female

management is measured as the proportion of top command positions occupied by women. Top

command positions are Chiefs, Deputy/Assistant Chiefs, Commanders/Majors, and Captains, or

14

their equivalent. These data are collected by the National Center for Women and Policing (Lonsway

et al. 2000). The measure ranges from 0 to 33.3% and has a mean of 5.6%.

This is the most appropriate measure for this study for a variety of reasons. First, women are

estimated to occupy the very top spot (i.e. Chief, Sheriff, etc…) in only 2% of law enforcement

organizations. Thus, the numbers that appear in samples like the one used in this analysis are quite

small. This makes comparisons with male counterparts dependent on the behavior of only a handful

of women and, therefore, potentially unreliable. The proportion is also an appropriate measure

because in large organization, like the ones being studied here, many important policy decisions will

be made members of the command team. For example, the formation of problem solving groups

will often take place at the station level and be driven largely by the Captains of those stations.

Similarly, proposed standard operating procedures are often reviewed and preliminarily approved or

denied by deputy chiefs in charge of specific topical areas (e.g. internal affairs, community relations,

technology, etc…). Obviously, the head of these organizations has the ultimate authority over

policy, but the necessary delegation of authority to subordinates in command positions makes the

proportion of women in those positions a good measure for comparing the relative management

styles of men and women.

As noted above, I expect that the number of female employees within an organization may

help to account for observed differences between male and female managers. Thus, all models

include the percent of sworn officers in each police organization that are women. These data were

collected by the Center for Women and Policing (Lonsway et al. 2000). The average organization in

the sample has 9.9 percent women, but the figure varies from .9 to 42.1%. All models also include a

multiplicative interaction between the percent of top commanders that are women and the percent

of sworn officers that are women. This allows for a direct test of the hypothesis that the gender

makeup of the workforce moderates the management styles of female leaders.

15

Controls

All of the models discussed below contain a set of variables intended to control for

alternative causes of the dependent variables. All were gathered in the 2000 LEMAS survey. First, I

include an indicator of the jurisdictional population per sworn officer, assuming that organizations

which are spread thin across a large jurisdiction are likely to be managed differently. I also measure

task complexity with an indicator of the number of functions for which the organization in

responsible (e.g. dispatching calls, maintaining 911 services, operating jails, serving civil warrants,

etc…) (See Nicholson-Crotty and O’Toole 2004). Models include an indicator of organizational size,

measured as the number of full-time sworn officers employed in 2000. They also include the annual

budget in the same year, normalized by the number of full-time officers, as a measure of wealth.

Finally, the models include dichotomous indicators or organizational type. This addresses the

problem of comparing very different organizational types discussed above. Dummy variables for

municipal police and Sheriff’s departments are included in the models, while state police are treated

as the excluded category.

Methods

Before moving on it is important to note the possibility of reciprocal causation in these

models and specify an estimation strategy to address the problem. Because these are cross-sectional

data on police organizations it is possible that an observed relationship between female managers

and policies associated with a feminine management style might be driven by the policies

themselves, rather than by the actions of women commanders. In other words, rather than women

commanders instituting collective bargaining or fewer SOPs, it may be that organizations that

already have these policies are the ones where women are most likely to be hired and to succeed.

Indeed, research suggests that the gender context of organizations does influence the success of

women (see Britton 2000).

16

The best way to deal with endogeneity of this sort in cross-sectional data is via a structural

equations approach where an equation predicting the dependent variable of interest and equations

predicting the potentially endogenous independent variables can be estimated simultaneously. This

procedure allows the analyst to determine the causal direction of the observed relationship between

dependent and independent variables and eliminate the bias in estimated coefficients arising from

endogeneity (See Wooldridge 2008 for a discussion). Using three-stage least squares (3sls), I estimate

the following set of simultaneous equations:

Equation 1:

efficerBudgetperOersSwornoffic

tyMunicipaliSheriffckOfficersPercentBlaOfficersMaximumPayNetworking

ngGroupsoblemSolviainingBCollectiveSOPssaleOfficerPercentFem

109

87654

321 Prarg

Equation 2:

efficerBudgetperOersSwornoffictyMunicipaliSheriffkOfficersPercenBlac

ChiefMaximumPayorsleSupervisPecentFemasaleOfficerPercentFemNetworking

ngGroupsoblemSolviainingBCollectiveSOPsandersaleTopCommPercentFem

12111098

7654

321 Prarg

Equation 3:

efficerBudgetperOperofficerPopulation

ersSwornoffictyMunicipaliSheriffalOfficersPercentFemanderaleTopCommPercentFem

saleOfficerPercentFemandersaleTopCommPercentFemetcainingBCollectiveSOPeiPolicy

1211

10543

21

*

....),arg,..(

As these equations indicate, the models of female officers and female commanders control for some

additional factors, including the maximum pay available to officers and chiefs respectively, and the

organization’s generalized commitment to diversity—measured as the percent of black officers.

Additionally, the model of female commanders (Equation 2) includes the percent female officers

within the organization and the percent of supervisory roles (lieutenants, sergeants, etc…) occupied

by women. Of course, Equation 3 is of primary interest and will occupy the bulk of the discussion,

but results from all three equations are presented in the Tables. Equation 3 is the last presented in

17

each table. Coefficients for the impacts of female commanders, female officers, and the interaction

of the two on the policy being analyzed are in bold typeface in order to make them easier to identify.

Findings and Discussion

Standard Operating Procedures. The findings from the 3sls model of standard operating

procedures per officer are presented in Table 1. The models predicting the endogenous variables,

percent female officers and percent female top commanders, are also shown and we can review

those results quickly before turning to the model of interest. The model explaining the density of

women employees (Equation 1) performed relatively well, explaining .23 of the variance in that

variable. The measure of standard operating procedures per officer is negatively associated with the

percent of female officers, which suggests that organizations which grant officers more discretion

are more likely to hire women as line personnel. Sheriffs’ offices and municipal departments are

significantly more likely to hire women than are state police organizations. Departmental resources

(budget per officer), size (sworn officers), pay (minimum salary officer), and racial diversity (percent

black male officers), were all unrelated to female hiring.

(APPROXIMATE POSITION OF TABLE 1)

Turning to the model of women in leadership positions (Equation 2), the use of problem

solving projects and groups is positively related to the percent of top commanders who are female,

suggesting that organizations which adopt this more participatory style of policing are also more

likely to promote women to the rank of captain or above. Not surprisingly, the percent of women

officers is also positively related to percent female commanders, presumably because organization

with more female officers have a larger pool of candidates that may aspire to higher ranks. What is

unexpected, however, is that the percent of female supervisors (sergeants and lieutenants) is

negatively related to the percent of women occupying the next rank tier, which is a result that

18

requires further research. Budget per officer is positively related to female top commanders, as racial

diversity. Interestingly, though they are likely to hire more women, sheriffs’ offices and municipal

departments appear less likely to promote them. Both types of organizations have fewer women in

top positions than do state police organizations.

Findings from the model of standard operating procedures per sworn officer (Equation 3)

are presented in the final panel of Table 1. Generally speaking, the model performs well, explaining

38% of the variation in the dependent variable. The controls suggest that Sheriff’s offices and

municipal departments maintain more SOPs than do state police organizations. Similarly, it appears

that organizations with fewer resources, in terms of officers per population, and those with greater

task complexity, measured as the number of functions that the organization is asked to perform,

promulgate fewer SOPs.

Of course, the real findings of interest relate to the gender makeup of the workforce and the

management team and the interaction of the two. It is important to reiterate that these results

represent the impact of female top commanders and officers on SOPs after the potential impact of

that and other more participatory policies, as well as a host of other factors, on those variables has

been accounted for in the other equations in this system. The negative and significant coefficient on

the measure of women in top command positions suggests that organizations led by a greater

number of women are likely to adopt fewer SOPs relative to the number of employees. The

interaction term is positive and significant, however, suggesting that the likelihood that female

commanders will promulgate fewer rules decreases as the number of female officers increases.

Calculating the marginal effects with other variables held at their means suggests that move from 1-

standard deviation below to 1-standard deviation above the mean percentage of female commanders

produces a decrease of .011 SOPs per officers when the organization employs only 4 percent, or 1-

19

sd below the mean level, of female officers. This represents a substantively large impact of .61-sd. In

an organization that employs 14 percent female officers (+1-sd), however, the same increase in

female commanders produces no significant decrease in SOPs.

This result is consistent with the expectation offered above. In order to reduce role conflict,

female managers adopt more feminine styles and policies, in this case increasing employee discretion

by reducing the number rules governing behavior, when leading male-dominated organizations. As

the proportion of the work force that is female increases, and the need to minimize gender role

conflict decreases, women managers gravitate toward organizational roles and their managerial styles

become indistinguishable from men occupying the same role.

Problem Solving Techniques. The model of problem solving techniques is presented in

Table 2. Again, the equation predicting percent female officers (Equation 1) performed well, with

SOPs and agency type negatively signed as they were in the first analysis. Interestingly, in this model

the wealth of the organization is also negatively associated with the hiring of female officers. Before

moving on, it is important to note that it is not unusual that the predictors of other endogenous

factors would change when a new dependent variable is introduced into the system of structural

equations. The errors across all three models are allowed to be interdependent in the 3-stage-least-

squares estimator, meaning that the findings from any single equation are dependent in part on the

findings from the other equations in the system.


The model predicting the percent of top command positions occupied by women (Equation

2) changes quite substantially in this set of equations. This estimation suggests that standard

operating procedures per sworn officer are negatively related to the number of women in leadership

positions, while the use of problem solving techniques and networking activity are both positively

20

related to percent female commanders. Taken together these results suggest that agencies with more

participatory and inclusive policies are more likely to promote women into command positions. The

percentage of officers that are female is again positively correlated with women, while the density of

women in supervisory positions is once again surprisingly negative. Finally, the results indicate that

organizations that pay more to top managers, based on the maximum salary for the Chief, promote

fewer women.

Turning to the model with problem solving techniques as the dependent variable (Equation

3), the coefficient for top female commanders is positive and significant, suggesting that

organizations with more women leaders are more likely to institutionalize collaborative problem

solving as a policing technique. As expected, the interaction term is negative and significant,

however, indicating that the positive relationship between these variables diminishes as the percent

of female officers increases. Calculating marginal effects with other variables held at their means or

modes suggests that in agencies with 1-sd fewer than the mean level of female officers an increase in

female commanders produces an increase of .28, which is equivalent to .35-sd. Alternatively, in

organizations with 1-sd more than the average percentage of female officers, the same change in

women commanders produces no significant increase in the use of problem solving techniques.

The findings regarding the relationship between female commanders and collaborative

problem solving and the moderating impact of female officers on that relationship provide evidence

for the hypothesis offered above. They suggest that female executives attempt to minimize role

conflict in male dominated organizations by adopting more inclusive and participatory policies than

do their male counterparts. As the organization they lead becomes more feminine, decreasing the

likelihood of perceived gender role violations in the eyes of subordinates, female commanders adopt

leadership styles that are indistinguishable from their male counterparts.

21

Collective Bargaining. The model of collective bargaining, along with accompanying

equations predicting percent female officers and commanders, are presented in Table 3. In this case,

the model of women line personnel (Equation 1) performs poorly, with no significant predictors of

female officers emerging. The analysis of female commanders (Equation 2) is more consistent with

previous models, though the 4 policies do not significantly predict the dependent variable in this

specification. Organizations with more female offices do have more women in leadership positions,

as was the case in both other analyses and, again, female supervisors are negatively related to the

percent of women in top command positions. Also similar to previous models, it appears that

Sheriff’s offices and municipal departments promote fewer women relative to state police

organizations.


Turning to the model of interest in the third panel, it does not appear that female police

managers are more likely to implement collective bargaining for employees (Equation 3). The

coefficient on the measure of top commanders is not statistically distinct from 0. The interaction

term is also insignificant, indicating that female commanders are not related to collective bargaining

regardless of the level of female officers. This is obviously contrary to the expectation offered above.

The finding may arise because this is simply a policy area, like many others noted in the literature,

where male and female mangers do not differ in significant ways, regardless of the gender context of

the organization. Alternatively, the null result may arise because whether or not collective bargaining

is permitted for municipal, county, or state employees is a decision that is made above the police

organization level in some jurisdictions (e.g. by the city council, county commissioners, or state

legislature). Thus, women managers might manipulate that policy in order to minimize gender role

conflict where they are able, but the organizations in which they do not have discretion over the

22

policy confound the results. The fact that both the main effect and interaction terms are in the

expected direction suggests that this is plausible, but obviously more research is needed to identify

the true underlying explanation.

Networking. The final set of equations models the propensity of police organizations to

network with stakeholder and community groups. As in previous models, SOPs and agency type

influence the hiring of female officers (Equation 1), while the use of problem solving techniques, the

density of women at other levels of the organization, and agency type predict the promotion of

women into top command positions (Equation 2).


Looking at the final model in the table, the findings also suggest that, even after modeling

the influence of these factors on presence of female leadership, that variable is still positively and

significantly related to networking activity (Equation 3). The interaction term is negative and

significant, however, suggesting that the female commanders network less as the percent of female

officers within the organization increases. The marginal effects suggest that, in organizations with 1-

sd fewer than the mean level of female officers (4%), an increase from 1-sd below to 1-sd above the

mean in female commanders causes an increase of 2.5 in the number of groups with which the

organization meets regularly. In organizations with 1-sd more than the average concentration of

women officers, the increase in networking activity associated with more female commanders drops

to 1.2 additional groups. When the percent of female officers reaches 24%, more the relationship

between women in top command positions and networking activity actually becomes negative,

though it is not statistically discernable from 0. These results are, once again, consistent with

predictions offered above regarding the behavior of female leaders in different gender contexts.

23

Conclusion

A large body of research has explored the organizational factors that might condition

gender differences among male and female managers. Scholars have suggested that the gender of the

workforce might be one such factor and have typically assumed that differences are more likely to

disappear when women manage male-dominated organizations. Alternatively, this work draws on

Social Role Theory and notions of role incongruity between organizational and gender roles to

develop the contrary expectation that differences are most likely to be most evident when women

manage primarily male employees. More specifically, it suggests that women minimize gender role

conflict arising from male employee stereotypes by adopting more feminine management styles and

policies. As the proportion of workers evaluating them becomes more heavily female, women

managers face less gender role conflict and adopt policies and styles more similar to their male

counterparts.

Even after explicitly modeling the obvious endogeneity between organizational

characteristics and the hiring and promotion of women, the results suggest that female commanders

of police organizations adopt different policies than their male counterparts when leading

predominately male organizations. They also suggest, however, that those differences diminish or

disappear as the percent of female officers increases. This result obviously requires confirmation in

other organizational settings, but it provides some evidence that women managers may focus on

minimizing gender, rather than organizational, role conflict when leading male-dominated

organizations. This leads them to adopt more feminine, rather than more masculine, styles in these

settings.

When Kanter (1977) initially suggested that women managers behave differently depending

on gender context, she described workgroups with less than 15% women as male- dominated. Below

24

that threshold, she argued that women would experience the increased scrutiny, isolation, and

stereotyping that might influence their perceptions and behavior. Interestingly, in this study it is at

approximately 14% female officers that an increase in female commanders ceases to have an impact

on the density of standard operating procedures. Under that threshold, in what Kanter and others

(see Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999) identify as male-dominated organizations, women leaders

institute fewer of these policies relative to male counterparts, but above it, the two groups become

indistinguishable. The threshold is essentially the same for the relationship between female

commanders and the use of collaborative problem solving. This suggests that some of the earliest

work on gender and management continues to offer accurate predictions about the levels of women

in the workforce at which we should expect to observe differences in the behavior of male and

female managers.

The findings regarding networking behavior also invite comparisons with previous research.

In an organizational setting where women constitute approximately 80% of employees, Meier et al.

(2006) find that women managers network less aggressively than their male counterparts. Across a

range of agencies where the mean percentage of women is 22%, Jacobsen et al. (2009) find that

women network less than or similarly to male managers, depending on the measure. Consistent with

that work, this study finds that women manage less substantively, or the same statistically, compared

with male counterparts when leading organizations with approximately 24% female employees. In

organizations that employ less than 16% women, however, it finds that women network more with

stakeholder groups than do men. Thus, the findings herein suggest that sample characteristics may

explain the finding in previous work that women ―manage outward‖ (Moore 1995) to a lesser degree

than do men.

25

References

Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. 1986. Women and men in task groups. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations (pp. 259-310). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass&Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd

ed.). New York: Free. Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1993. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.

Public Administration Quarterly 17:112–21. Bellamy, P. A. & Ramsay, K. (1994). Barriers to women working in corporate management.

Canberra:Australian Government Publishing Service. Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectancies, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press. Book, E. W. (2000). Why the best man for the job is a woman. New York: HarperCollins Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. 1989. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal 32: 662-669. Britton, Dana M. 2000. ―The Epistemology of the Gendered Organization.‖ Gender and Society 14 (3): 418-434. Burke, Sarah, and Karen Collins. 2001. Gender differences in leadership styles and management

skills. Women in Management Review 16:244–57. Davidson, M. J. & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: The woman manager. London: Paul

Chapman Publishing. Deal, J. J. & Stevenson, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: Plus ca

change . . . Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 38, 287–301. Dolan, Julie. 2000. The Senior Executive Service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:513–29.

Feldman, D.C. 1976. A Contingency Theory of Socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 433-452

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 233–256.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=admisciequar

26

Eagly, A.H. and Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt. 2001. The Leadership Styles of Women and Men. Journal of Social Issues 57: 781–797

Eagly, Alice H., Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt, Marloes L. van Engen. 1993. Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men. Psychological Bulletin 129: 569-591.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review 109: 573-598. Eagley, Alice H., Steven J. Karau, and Blair T. Johnson. 1992. Gender and leadership style among

school principals: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 28:76–102. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. T. (1994). Gender and motivation to manage

in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 135–159. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and

similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118. Feldman, M. S., Khademian, A. M., Ingram, H. and Schneider, A. S. (2006), Ways of Knowing and

Inclusive Management Practices. Public Administration Review, 66: 89–99. Gardiner, Maria and Marika Tiggemann. 1999. Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and

mental health in male- and female-dominated industries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72: 301–315

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard

Univ. Press. Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women

at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38:55–74. Gutek, Barbara and Aaron Cohen. 1987. Sex Ratios, Sex Role Spillover, and Sex at Work: A

Comparison of Men's and Women's Experiences. Human Relations 40: 97-115

Guy , Mary Ellen , and Meredith A . Newman . 2004 . Women ’ s and Men ’ s Jobs: Sex Segregation and Emotional Labor . Public Administration Review 64: 289 – 98

27

Ichniowski, Casey, Richard B. Freeman and Harrison Lauer. 1989. Collective Bargaining Laws,

Threat Effects, and the Determination of Police Compensation, Journal of Labor Economics 7: 191-209

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic. Krimmel, John and Paula E. Gormley. 2003. Tokenism and job satisfaction for policewomen

American Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 73-88 Lonsway, Kim, Sue Carrington, Patricia Aguirre, Michelle Wood, Margaret Moore, Penny

Harrington, Eleanor Smeal, Katherine Spillar. 2001. Equality Denied: The Status of Women in Policing. National Center for Women & Policing, Beverly Hills CA. Available at:

http://www.womenandpolicing.org/PDF/2002_Status_Report.pdf . accessed last on 9/22/10. Mandell, Barbara, and Shilpa Pherwani. 2003. Relationship between emotional intelligence and

transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology 17:387–404.

March, J. and H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley. Meier, Kenneth J., Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr., and Holly T. Goerdel. 2006. Management activity and

program performance: Gender as management capital. Public Administration Review 66:24–36.

Moe, T. M. (2009), Collective Bargaining and The Performance of the Public Schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53: 156–174

Nachmias, D. and David H. Rosenbloom. 1973. Measuring Bureaucratic Representation and Integration Public Administration Review 33: 590-597.

Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. 1981. Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.

O'Leary, V. E. 1974. Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 809-826. Ott, E. Marlies. 1989. Effects ofthe male-female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses.

Psychology of Women Quarterly 13:41-58. Portillo, Shannon, and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2009. Gender and organizational rule abidance. Public

Administration Review 69:339–47. Powell, G. N. 1993. Women & men in management (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=jlaboreconomics

http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu:2292/content/?Author=John+T.+Krimmel

http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu:2292/content/?Author=Paula+E.+Gormley

http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu:2292/content/1066-2316/

http://www.womenandpolicing.org/PDF/2002_Status_Report.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=publadmirevi

28

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1994. Investigating the ―glass ceiling‖ phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68–86

Provan, Keith, Patrick Kenis. 2008. Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 229-252

Riger, S., & Galligan, P. 1980. Women in management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist 35:902-910.

Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret : Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York:

Oxford University Press. Schein, V. E. & Davidson, M. J. 1993. Think manager, think male. Management Development Review

6:24–28. Schein, V. E. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management

characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 95-100. Schein, V. E. 2001. A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management.

Journal of Social Issues 57: 675–688. Sinclair, Lisa and Ziva Kunda. 2000. Motivated Stereotyping of Women: She’s Fine if She Praised

Me but Incompetent if She Criticized Me. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 1329-1342.

Skogan, Wesley G. Susan M. Hartnett, Jill DuBois, Jennifer T. Comey, Marianne Kaiser, Justine H.

Lovig. 1999. On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Spangler, Eve, Marsha A. Gordon and Ronald M. Pipkin. 1978. Token Women: An Empirical Test

of Kanter's Hypothesis The American Journal of Sociology 84:160-170

Stivers, Camilla. 2002. Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State . 2nd ed .Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications

Terborg, James R. 1977. Women in management: A research review Journal of Applied Psychology 62:

647-664

Thompson, James D.1967. Organization in Action. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Trojanowicz, R., V E Kappeler, L K Gaines, B Bucqueroux, R Sluder. 1998. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough, Eds., Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 147-197.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=amerjsoci

29

Table 1: 3 Stage Least Squares Estimate of Impact of Women Commanders on SOPs

Equation 1: Percent Women Officers Coefficient Std. Err. z-score P>|z|

SOPs

-145.0564 49.35192 -2.94 0.003

Problem Solving

-0.0376804 0.6952161 -0.05 0.957

Networking

-0.0576398 0.1176874 -0.49 0.624

Collective Bargaining

0.0475024 0.3367593 0.14 0.888

Budget per Officer

-9.35E-06 3.72E-06 -2.51 0.012

Sheriff

8.542119 1.00463 8.50 0.000

Municipal

5.644356 0.9195153 6.14 0.000

Max Pay Officer

-0.4450152 0.4504167 -0.99 0.323

Percent Black Officer

0.0046253 0.0025958 1.78 0.075

sworn Officers

0.0001409 0.0003578 0.39 0.694

Intercept 10.65343 2.037449 5.23 0.000

Equation 2: Percent Women Commanders

SOPs

183.9642 144.7497 1.27 0.204

Problem Solving

2.76365 2.003755 1.38 0.168

Networking

0.5592221 0.3524636 1.59 0.113


-1.20269 0.9975227 -1.21 0.228

Percent Women

5.099352 0.3209578 15.89 0.000

Percent Women Sup.

-1.585537 0.1995589 -7.95 0.000

Budget per Officer

0.0000339 0.0000106 3.19 0.001

Sheriff

-29.93985 3.436414 -8.71 0.000

Municipal

-19.08748 2.843539 -6.71 0.000

Max Pay Officer

2.510714 1.367613 1.84 0.066


-0.0127509 0.0077429 -1.65 0.100

sworn Officers

0.0000629 0.0010596 0.06 0.953

Intercept -30.82402 6.385159 -4.83 0.000

Equation 3: SOPs per Officer

Percent Women Commander

-0.0014038 0.000994 -1.41 0.158

Percent Women Officers

-0.002557 0.0003923 -6.52 0.000

Women Com. X Women Off.

0.0000601 0.0000351 1.71 0.087

Budget Per Officer

1.33E-08 1.48E-08 0.9 0.368

Functions

-0.0008381 0.0006543 -1.28 0.200

Sheriff

0.0144078 0.0048885 2.95 0.003

Municipal

0.0088708 0.0044559 1.99 0.047

Population per Officer

-3.20E-06 1.01E-06 -3.17 0.002

Sworn Officers

-4.03e-06 2.02E-06 -1.99 0.047

Intercept 0.0565627 0.0051814 10.92 0.000

30

Table 2: 3 Stage Least Squares Estimate of Impact of Women Commanders

on Problem Solving


SOPs

-53.07103 17.96686 -2.95 0.003

Problem Solving

0.0354678 0.6642212 0.05 0.957

Networking

-0.1384626 0.1159342 -1.19 0.232


0.1772346 0.3255005 0.54 0.586

Budget per Officer

-9.71E-06 3.46E-06 -2.8 0.005

Sheriff

8.452543 0.9269221 9.12 0.000

Municipal

4.948515 0.7830833 6.32 0.000

Max Pay Officer

-0.4920501 0.4527767 -1.09 0.277


0.0062113 0.0023388 2.66 0.008

sworn Officers

0.0002787 0.0002734 1.02 0.308

Intercept 8.568077 1.55803 5.5 0.000


SOPs

-158.1347 51.05923 3.1 0.002

Problem Solving

5.273434 1.734725 3.04 0.002

Networking

0.6425022 0.294956 2.18 0.029


-1.190748 0.8390866 -1.42 0.156

Percent Women

5.34369 0.2986844 17.89 0.000

Percent Women Sup.

-1.404002 0.1788216 -7.85 0.000

Budget per Officer

0.0000347 0.0000104 3.34 0.001

Sheriff

-34.30443 3.26916 -10.49 0.000

Municipal

-21.60991 2.520655 -8.57 0.000

Max Pay Officer

1.675803 1.156752 1.45 0.147


-0.0176398 0.0059779 -2.95 0.003

sworn Officers

-0.0008451 0.0006866 -1.23 0.218

Intercept -30.85038 4.507971 -6.84 0.000

Equation 3: Problem Solving


0.2776915 0.0640809 4.33 0.000


-0.0735694 0.0385393 -1.91 0.056


-0.0092745 0.002267 -4.09 0.000

Budget Per Officer

-3.66E-07 1.33E-06 -0.28 0.783

Functions

-0.0069539 0.0600511 -0.12 0.908

Sheriff

1.068349 0.4528643 2.36 0.018

Municipal

0.4921917 0.3818116 1.29 0.197


-0.0000992 0.0000727 -1.36 0.173

Sworn Officers

-0.0000151 0.0000652 -0.23 0.817

Intercept 0.5413037 0.4437585 1.22 0.223

31


on Collective Bargaining


SOPs

-41.4143 93.32971 -0.44 0.657

Problem Solving

1.837016 1.639264 1.12 0.262

Networking

-0.2210274 0.2826459 -0.78 0.434


-25.29287 13.85892 -1.83 0.068

Budget per Officer

0.0000394 0.0000252 1.56 0.119

Sheriff

-2.362954 7.218297 -0.33 0.743

Municipal

2.496411 3.854842 0.65 0.517

Max Pay Officer

-1.993289 3.621592 -0.55 0.582


0.001992 0.0070804 0.28 0.778

sworn Officers

0.0003325 0.0009889 0.34 0.737

Intercept 34.75678 18.59215 1.87 0.062


SOPs

-3.16147 82.52966 -0.04 0.969

Problem Solving

2.116839 2.138815 0.99 0.322

Networking

0.3404675 0.3995641 0.85 0.394


11.46741 12.4822 0.92 0.358

Percent Women

3.987557 0.379707 10.5 0.000

Percent Women Sup.

-1.499027 0.2202008 -6.81 0.000

Budget per Officer

2.11E-06 0.0000213 0.1 0.921

Sheriff

-15.50826 5.986105 -2.59 0.010

Municipal

-11.70569 3.190081 -3.67 0.000

Max Pay Officer

3.229464 3.511508 0.92 0.358


-0.0100819 0.0084909 -1.19 0.235

sworn Officers

-0.000891 0.0011063 -0.81 0.421

Intercept -31.28718 18.12826 -1.73 0.084

Equation 3: Collective Bargaining


0.0411287 0.0362103 1.14 0.256


-0.0388724 0.0115246 -3.37 0.001


-0.0014804 0.0012751 -1.16 0.246

Budget Per Officer

1.51E-06 6.72E-07 2.24 0.025

Functions

0.0106484 0.0305403 0.35 0.727

Sheriff

-0.0791445 0.198046 -0.4 0.689

Municipal

0.0861135 0.1601323 0.54 0.591


-0.0000117 0.0000297 -0.39 0.694

Sworn Officers

-0.0000379 0.0000616 -0.62 0.538

Intercept 1.047588 0.2559451 4.09 0.000

32


on Networking


SOPs

-54.07482 20.55542 -2.63 0.009

Problem Solving

0.5411764 1.310658 0.41 0.68

Networking

-0.3522872 0.7949848 -0.44 0.658


0.199156 0.3461942 0.58 0.565

Budget per Officer

-9.29E-06 3.76E-06 -2.47 0.013

Sheriff

8.675259 1.274673 6.81 0.000

Municipal

5.147408 1.07322 4.8 0.000

Max Pay Officer

-0.6700054 1.129459 -0.59 0.553


0.006204 0.0028783 2.16 0.031

sworn Officers

0.0002877 0.000279 1.03 0.302

Intercept 9.452206 4.796801 1.97 0.049


SOPs

54.86108 65.95674 0.83 0.406

Problem Solving

6.017978 4.139355 1.95 0.146

Networking

-1.907243 2.511163 -0.76 0.448


-1.187158 1.097341 -1.08 0.279

Percent Women

5.06936 0.3636734 13.94 0.000

Percent Women Sup.

-1.486034 0.2198033 -6.76 0.000

Budget per Officer

0.0000377 0.0000121 3.12 0.002

Sheriff

-27.57828 4.657615 -5.92 0.000

Municipal

-16.62047 3.6527 -4.55 0.000

Max Pay Officer

-1.103397 3.594491 -0.31 0.759


-0.0109379 0.0092585 -1.18 0.237

sworn Officers

-0.0008733 0.000886 -0.99 0.324

Intercept -12.989 15.45357 -0.84 0.401

Equation 3: Networking


0.6116414 0.1662671 3.68 0.000


-0.0850518 0.0974285 -0.87 0.383


-0.0220835 0.0058941 -3.75 0.000

Budget Per Officer

2.76E-06 3.47E-06 0.8 0.426

Functions

0.3693608 0.1863351 1.98 0.047

Sheriff

1.130853 1.208546 0.94 0.349

Municipal

0.2744318 1.05638 0.26 0.795


-0.0005796 0.0002231 -2.6 0.009

Sworn Officers

0.0042877 0.0027024 1.59 0.113

Intercept 2.263559 1.23382 1.83 0.067

Gender Roles, Workforce Composition, and Management Style: … · Gender Roles, Workforce...

Documents

Transcript of Gender Roles, Workforce Composition, and Management Style: … · Gender Roles, Workforce...