WOMEN1 S AND MEN1 S NETWORKS IN THE WORKPLACE: ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOURS, AND OUTCOMES by LAURA-LYNNE McBAIN B.S.N., The University of British Columbia, 1975 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1990 ® Laura-Lynne McBain, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Homosociality, the societal norm toward same-gender social bonding, has been hypothesized as an important explanatory variable in the maintenance of occupational segregation by gender and the low status of women in traditionally male-dominated occupations (Lipman-Blumen, 1976; Reagan & Blaxall, 1976). In this investigation of homosociality in the workplace, 257 women and 197 men employed in managerial, supervisory, professional, and technical positions in seven organizations completed a questionnaire regarding their career development and interpersonal relationships in their current organization. Predictions derived from homosociality theory and the literature and research on mentoring, friendship, and organizational networks were tested. Of the 17 hypotheses associated with five research questions, 8 were fully or partially supported, 6 were not supported, and 3 could not be tested because factor analysis did not support the variable of interest (lifetime attachment). Alpha was apportioned using the Bonferroni inequality procedure; probability levels ranged from .025 to .0025 depending on the number of significance tests conducted for each question. Analysis of variance (Gender x Gender Composition of Network) and simple main effects analysis performed on mentoring and relationship provisions (intimacy, similarity, defiance of convention, respect for differences) scores indicated one significant main effect for gender: women's same-gender networks provided more intimacy than men's. Significant main effects for gender composition were: (a) men's same-gender networks provided more mentoring than their cross-gender networks; (b) women's same-gender networks provided more intimacy than their cross-gender networks; and (c) for both genders, same-gender networks provided higher levels of similarity and defiance of convention than cross-gender networks. Correlational analyses indicated: (a) for women, but generally not for men, homosocial attitudes were significantly related to the size and activities of same- and cross-gender networks; (b) for both genders, same- and cross-gender mentoring and primarily same-gender relationship provisions were positively and significantly related to career- and job-related outcomes. i i i Homosociality was evident in attitudes, network activities, and outcomes. Results also indicated signs of organizational gender integration. Implications for theory and counselling, and suggestions for future research, are discussed. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii List of Tables vii List of Figures x Acknowledgement xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background to the Problem: Conceptual Foundations 1 1. Occupational Segregation by Gender 1 2. Homosociality 3 3. Homosociality and Organizational Networks 7 B. Statement of the Problem 8 C. Significance of the Study 10 Chapter II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 A. Homosociality 13 1. Theories of Male Bonding 13 2. Theories of Female Bonding 16 3. Research on the Behaviours and Special Characteristics of Same-Gender Relationships 19 4. Homosocial Attitudes 23 5. The Relationship Between Homosocial Attitudes and Behaviour 35 B. Cross-Gender Relationships 38 C. Homosociality and Organizational Networks 40 1. Independent Achievement Versus Development in Relationship 41 2. The Psychology of Tokenism 43 3. Advancement Through the Activities of Informal Networks: Blocks and Opportunities 46 4. Homosociality and Network Structure 50 D. Mentoring 59 1. Mentoring Functions 60 2. Gender Differences in Mentoring Relationships 70 3. Outcomes of Mentoring Behaviours 71 4. A Network of Supportive Relationships as an Alternative to a Single Mentor 74 E. The Stages of Career Development 76 F. Research Questions and Hypotheses 77 V Chapter III. METHOD 90 A. Research Procedures 90 1. Recruitment of Participating Organizations 90 2. Generation of the Sample 91 3. Questionnaire Distribution and Return 92 B. Measures 95 1. The Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) 96 2. The Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Bonds) 101 3. Supportive (Mentoring) Functions and Behaviours 106 4. Satisfaction With Progression 111 5. Average Annual Salary Increase 111 6. Average Number of Promotions per Year 112 7. Skill Development 112 8. Job Satisfaction : 114 9. Organizational Commitment 114 10. Acceptance by Co-workers 115 11. Loneliness at Work 116 12. Demographic Measures 117 C. Design and Statistical Analysis 117 Chapter IV. RESULTS : 125 A. Characteristics of the Respondent Sample 125 1. Number of Respondents 125 2. Description of the Sample 127 B. Hypothesis-Testing Analyses 128 1. Research Question 1: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? 129 2. Research Question 2: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? 133 3. Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? 143 4. Research Question 4: How do homosocial attitudes in the interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? 152 5. Research Question 5: How do levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? 161 v i Chapter V. DISCUSSION 170 A. Discussion of the Results for Each of the Five Research Questions 171 1. Research Question 1: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? 171 2. Research Question 2: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? 173 3. Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? 176 4. Research Question 4: How do homosocial attitudes in the interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? 185 5. Research Question 5: How do levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? 186 B. Limitations of the Study 189 1. Individual Perceptions 189 2. Characteristics of the Sample 190 3. The Exploratory Nature of the Study 194 C. Implications and Recommendations for Future Research 197 1. Implications for Theory 197 2. Implications for Counselling 204 D. Conclusions . 208 REFERENCES 209 APPENDICES 220 Appendix A. Measures 220 Appendix B. Characteristics of the Respondent Sample 258 Appendix C. Preliminary Analyses 265 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Bivariate Correlations Between Homosocial Attitudes and Size of Same- and Cross-Gender Supportive (Mentoring) Networks 131 Table 2: Bivariate Correlations Between Homosocial Attitudes and Levels of Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received from Same- and Cross-Gender Networks (Women) 136 Table 3: Bivariate Correlations Between Homosocial Attitudes and Levels of Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received from Same- and Cross-Gender Networks (Men) 137 Table 4: Results of 2 x 2 ANOVAs Performed on Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect of Differences Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios 150 Table 5: Results of 2 x 2 ANOVAs With Same-Gender IVs Performed on Career-and Job-Related Outcome Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios (Women).... 155 Table 6: Results of 2 x 2 ANOVAs With Same-Gender IVs Performed on Career-and Job-Related Outcome Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios (Men) 156 Table 7: Results of 2 x 2 ANOVAs With Cross-Gender IVs Performed on Career-and Job-Related Outcome Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios (Women).... 158 Table 8: Setup for 2 x 2 ANOVAs With Cross-Gender IVs: Cell Sizes and Mean Scores for Three Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables (Men) 160 Table 9: Standard Multiple Regression Results for Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes Regressed Separately Onto Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions (Women) 163 Table 10: Standard Multiple Regression Results for Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes Regressed Separately Onto Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions (Men) 164 Table 11: Bivariate Correlations Between Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received from Same- and Cross-Gender Networks and Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes (Women) 165 Table 12: Bivariate Correlations Between Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received From Same- and Cross-Gender Networks and Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes (Men) 166 Table 13: Network Members Considered While Completing the Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Measure: Numbers (and Percentages) of Same- and Cross-Gender Persons Listed Within Each Category of Relationship to Respondent 180 v i i i Table B-1: Number of Distributed, Returned, Excluded, and Retained Questionnaires 259 Table B-2: Age and Organizational Tenure of Respondents and Potential Respondents 260 Table B-3: Levels of Education of Respondents 261 Table B-4: Job Categories of Respondents 262 Table B-5: Marital Status of Respondents 263 Table B-6: Ethnic Designations of Respondents 264 Table C-1: Descriptive Statistics for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Measures (Women) 269 Table C-2: Descriptive Statistics for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Measures (Men) 270 Table C-3: Interscale Correlation Matrices for the 10 Career-and Job-Related Outcome Measures 274 Table C-4: Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Matrix for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables (Women) 276 Table C-5: Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Matrix for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables (Men) 277 Table C-6: Oblique Primary-Factor Intercorrelations for the Items of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale 281 Table C-7: Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Coefficients for Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale Items 282 Table C-8: Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Scales of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale 286 Table C-9: Interscale Correlations for the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale 288 Table C-10: Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Matrix and Communalities (h*-) for the Five Individual Scales of the Bonds Between Women Scale 289 Table C-11: Oblique Principal Component Pattern Matrix for the Three Individual Scales of the Bonds Between Men Scale 290 Table C-12: Oblique Primary-Factor Intercorrelations for 30 Items of the Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) 298 Table C-13: Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Coefficients for 30 Items of the Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) 299 i x Table C-14: Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Scales of the 30-ltem Close Social Relationships Scale (Same-Gender Relationships) 302 Table C-15: Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Scales of the 30-ltem Close Social Relationships Scale (Cross-Gender Relationships) 303 Table C-16: Interscale Correlations for the 30-ltem Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) 304 Table C-17: Descriptive Statistics for the Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Measure 306 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Overall model of variables and research questions 11 Figure 2: Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 1 118 Figure 3: Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 2 119 Figure 4: Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 3 120 Figure 5: Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 4 121 Figure 6: Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 5 122 Figure 7: Graphic presentation of 2 x 2 between-within ANOVA with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network) performed on Total Supportive Behaviour Scores 144 Figure 8: Graphic presentation of 2 x 2 between-within ANOVA with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network) performed on Intimacy scores 148 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank the members of my Supervisory Committee - Richard Young (Chair), Ralph Hakstian, Bonnie Long, Dan Perlman, Craig Pinder, and Lorette Woolsey -- for sharing their knowledge and experience with me. I also would like to express my gratitude to the contact people and individual respondents in the seven organizations from which the data for this study were collected. Funding sources for my doctoral programme and for my dissertation research are noted on the biographical form at the end of this document. In addition, I acknowledge my deep appreciation of the many colleagues, friends, and family members too numerous to mention by name, for being consistent sources of encouragement and practical help. Special thanks to Klaus Schroeder for generously sharing his opinions, experience, and measuring instruments; to Marsha Schroeder, Jessica McFarlane, and Tim Harpur for demystifying statistical analysis; to Jeeva Jonahs for her cheerful and careful approach to the word processing of this document; and to Maureen Ashfield for endless hours of proofreading and emotional support. Finally, I honour and thank the "wild patience" (Rich, 1981, p. 8) that sustained me during the years of work on this project. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 The purpose of this study was to test theories of male and female homosociality (same-gender social bonding) in the organizational context. The character of men's and women's relationships was examined by measuring the mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions supplied by same- and cross-gender relationship networks in seven different organizations. In addition, the relationship between homosocial attitudes and network activities was studied. Finally, measures of career- and job-related outcomes such as promotions, skill development, and job satisfaction were utilized in the investigation of the relationships between homosociality and these outcomes. The study is introduced in this chapter with an overview of the conceptual foundations which led to the problem statement, an expanded statement of purpose and listing of the specific questions that were addressed in this study, and a discussion of the significance of the study. A. BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS 1. Occupational Segregation by Gender The division of labour by gender is firmly entrenched in history as evidenced, for example, by the Judeo-Christian story of creation. After Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their Creator cursed them and assigned them different roles: To the woman he said: "I will increase your labour and your groaning, and in labour you shall bear children. You shall be eager for your husband, and he shall be your master." And to the man he said: "Because you have listened to your wife and have eaten from the tree which I forbade you, accursed shall be the ground on your account. With labour shall you win your food from it all the days of your life You shall gain your bread by the sweat of your brow 2 until you return to the ground; for from it you were taken." (Genesis 3:16,17,19a, The New English Bible, 1970, p. 4) The enactment of these gender roles has continued into modern times; in 1990, many women and men continue to operate in largely separate spheres of activity. For example, since the turn of the twentieth century, occupational segregation by gender has persisted in Canada (Moore, 1985) and the United States (Reskin & Hartmann, 1986) despite markedly increased participation rates of women in higher education and the paid labour force (Blau, 1984; Canada, Women's Bureau, 1987; Statisics Canada, 1989), a significant rise in public and governmental awareness of the status and rights of women (Ornstein, 1982), and strengthening employment equity legislation (Beller, 1984; Employment Equity Act, 1986). Occupational segregation by gender has two facets. First, in horizontal segregation (Hakim, 1979; Moore, 1985), women and men are concentrated in different occupations. Women tend to work in a small number of occupations in which the majority of workers are female, while men tend to work in a larger number of occupations in which the workers are predominantly male (Reskin & Hartmann, 1986). Second, in vertical segregation (Hakim, 1979; Moore, 1985), women tend to be located in occupations significantly lower in prestige, authority, or income than are men. Many explanations have been suggested for occupational segregation by gender. Theories of labour market discrimination summarized by Blau (1984) focus on discrimination against women by employers, co-workers, or customers. The human capital model, also summarized by Blau (1984), emphasizes that the traditional division of labour by gender within the family has resulted in women voluntarily choosing to enter occupations requiring less commitment and training because they expect a shorter and more discontinuous involvement in the paid labour force than men. Lipman-Blumen (1976) offers still another explanation. In her homosocial theory of sex roles, she presents a conceptual framework for understanding the gender segregation which pervades all of our social institutions - the workplace, the home and family, the legal system, the political arena, and the sphere of recreation. Briefly, homosociality is defined as "the seeking, enjoyment, and/or preference for the company of the same sex" (Lipman-Blumen, 1976, p. 16). This prevalent social 3 norm toward same-gender social bonding has been hypothesized to be an explanatory variable in occupational gender segregation and in the low status of women in male-dominated professions (Lipman-Blumen, 1976; Reagan & Blaxall, 1976). While theories of labour market discrimination and the human capital model have been tested to some degree, to date homosociality theory has not been tested empirically in the organizational context. Blau (1984), upon summarizing the empirical investigations of labour market discrimination theory and the human capital model, concluded that: It appears that sex segregation in employment is an important mechanism for producing sex differences in earnings and that the occupational differences between men and women do not seem to be consistent with optimizing behavior on the part of women. However, considerably more work is needed to understand the causes of sex differences in occupational distributions fully and to determine the role of such occupational differences in producing male-female pay differentials, (p. 139) Homosociality was posited as one heretofore uninvestigated factor in gender differences in occupational distributions. The current study addressed this deficit by examining patterns of homosociality in women's and men's relationships in the workplace. In the next section, homosociality is defined further. 2. Homosociality Because homosociality is a relatively new field of study, it is fraught with theoretical gaps and inconsistencies. In this section, divergent definitions are synthesized to provide a conceptual framework for the study of homosociality within the organizational context. A more complete review of homosociality theory and research follows in Chapter II (Review of the Literature). Homosociality has two distinctly different dimensions. First, homosociality may refer to actual relationships between same-gender persons, to "the social ties or bonds that women have with other women and that men have with other men" (Woolsey, 1987a, p. 117). These actual same-gender relationships may be different in character for men and for women, as suggested by 4 Bernard's (1976) definition of homosociality as "the different ways that men and women relate to their own sex" (pp. 227-228). In the current study, the activities and character of actual relationships were examined by measuring the mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions supplied to individual respondents by same- and cross-gender networks in their particular workplace. While the provisions of cross-gender networks obviously are not aspects of same-gender bonding, information about how cross-gender relationships differ from same-gender relationships will help to define the construct of homosociality. Definitions and units of measurement for mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions are introduced briefly below. Mentoring has been defined as a "relationship in which a person of greater rank or expertise teaches, counsels, guides and develops a novice in an organization or a profession" (Alleman, 1986, p. 45). A mentoring relationship may provide any of the following mentoring functions to a protege: Sponsoring, Exposure and Visibility, Teaching the Job, Teaching the Informal System, Protection, Role Modeling, Encouragement, and Personal Counselling (Schroeder, 1988/1989). Specific mentoring behaviours associated with each of these functions may be provided by persons other than a mentor in the traditional sense (Kram, 1985; Schroeder, 1988/1989). The present study examined the mentoring behaviours provided by a network of support persons within each respondent's organization. The total level of mentoring behaviours supplied by each of two networks (same-gender and cross-gender) were the units of measurement in the present study. The words supportive and mentoring both are used in the current document to describe the behaviours associated with mentoring functions provided to respondents by same- and cross-gender networks. This terminology was adapted from that of Schroeder (1988/1989) who, for the purpose of his study, renamed mentoring behaviours as supportive behaviours and referred to the overall level of mentoring behaviours measured by his scale as the Total Supportive Behaviour Score. Schroeder did this to acknowledge two things. First, what some writers have referred to as mentoring functions are conceptually comparable to what other authors have called work-related social support. Second, as discussed above, mentoring functions may be provided by co-workers 5 and others who are not necessarily seen as mentors. As Schroeder's scale was the measure of mentoring behaviours utilized in the current study, and because the level of mentoring behaviours provided by relationship networks that may or may not have included traditional mentors was measured, the current writer used the term supportive (mentoring) behaviours when this was necessary for clarity. When using the term supportive was not necessary for clarity, only the term mentoring was used. Relationship provisions were defined as the core aspects of close social relationships. Relationships that provide mentoring behaviours also can supply relationship provisions but they do not necessarily do so. Mentoring relationships that provide only career functions (e.g., Sponsoring, Exposure and Visibility, Teaching the Job, Teaching the Informal System, Protection) are more task-oriented and less emotionally close than are relationships that also provide psychosocial functions (e.g., Role Modeling, Encouragement, and Personal Counselling) (Kram, 1985). The relationship provisions measured in the current study were: Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Emotional Support, Respect for Differences, and Lifetime Attachment (Woolsey, Hakstian, & McBain, 1988b). While certain aspects of the psychosocial provisions of mentoring relationships were included in the overall measure of mentoring behaviours used in the present study (Schroeder, 1988/1989), the additional measurement of relationship provisions provided a more complete assessment of the psychosocial aspect of these relationships. Homosociality does not refer only to the activities and character of actual same-gender relationships. The second dimension of homosociality involves an "individual's affect, behaviour and cognitions regarding the same sex in general" (Woolsey, 1987a, p. 117). In the current study, this second aspect of homosociality was referred to as homosocial attitudes. The results of factor-analytic work on the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Woolsey, Hakstian, & McBain, 1988a), the measure of homosocial attitudes adapted for use in the current study, indicated that homosocial attitudes had a five-factor structure for women and a three-factor structure for men. Conceptual analysis of the factors suggested that the three factors common to women and men -- Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing --6 could be broadly subsumed under Lipman-Blumen's (1976) definition of homosociality as "the seeking, enjoyment, and/or preference for the company of the same sex" (p. 16). The item content of the Cross-Gender Preference factor suggested that a person with a high level of Cross-Gender Preference would prefer that persons of higher status or authority be of the other gender. The item content of the Same-Gender Preference factor indicated that someone with a high level of Same-Gender Preference would prefer that his or her peers (e.g., co-workers, teammates) be of his or her own gender. The Valuing items suggested that same-gender relationships can be valued in and of themselves, because they contribute something important to one's life. The final two homosocial attitude factors - Identification and Jealousy -- were supported only by the results for women; factor analysis of the same items using data gathered from men did not indicate the presence of Identification or Jealousy factors for men (Woolsey et al., 1988a). Rawlings and Carter's (1977) adaptation of Allport's (1955) minority group theory was utilized by Woolsey et al. (1988a) in their conceptual analysis of the women's Identification and Jealousy factors. The item content of these two factors suggested that they could be conceptualized as aspects of the ego defenses developed by women as a group to counteract the effects of prejudice and discrimination. These ego defenses are similar to those found in other disadvantaged social groups. Following Rawlings and Carter (1977), Identification was classified as an "extropunitive" ego defense; that is, the anger that results from unjust treatment is directed outward. Extropunitive ego defenses tend to strengthen ties between women (Rawlings & Carter, 1977). The item content of the Identification factor suggested that a woman with a high level of Identification would indicate a clear awareness of the cultural prejudice and discrimination experienced by herself and other women and would indicate an intent to assist other women in overcoming these disadvantages. If this high level of Identification were to be translated into behaviour, one might see this woman making a special effort to help other women get ahead in the workplace. The homosocial attitude of Jealousy was classified as an "intropunitive" ego defense. The hostility that results from unjust treatment is directed inward, toward the self and others like the self (i.e., other women), causing feelings of jealousy, competition, and threat between women, all of 7 which tend to erode ties with other women (Rawlings & Carter, 1977). If translated into behaviour, a woman with a high level of Jealousy toward other women might experience difficulties in same-gender relationships, neither giving to nor receiving from other women the supportive mentoring behaviours which have been linked to career development. The proposed study was an investigation of both of the previously noted aspects of homosociality - the behaviours and character of actual relationships and homosocial attitudes. In the next section, the hypothesized effects of homosociality on organizational networks are reviewed briefly. 3. Homosociality and Organizational Networks The exclusion of women from the informal networks of men in the workplace has been cited repeatedly as a key factor in women's slow entry into positions of power within organizations (Abramson, 1979; British Columbia, Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development [MISBD], 1979; Forisha & Goldman, 1981; Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Kanter, 1977; Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Lovelady-Dawson, 1981; Riger & Galligan, 1980; Viega, 1976). One result of women's exclusion from men's informal networks has been a deficiency in career sponsorship and mentoring for women (Bolton, 1980; Collins, 1983; Epstein, 1970; LaFrance, 1982; Riger & Galligan, 1980). While "women's networks" have become increasingly common over the past decade as an alternative method of career support for women (Forisha & Goldman, 1981; Fraser & Hendry, 1982), women's same-gender relationships in male-dominated organizations may present special problems of their own. For example, some upwardly mobile women in male-dominated systems have tended to dissociate themselves from other women, identifying and associating with men instead (Dellacava & Engel, 1979; Laws, 1975; Marshall, 1984). Eichenbaum and Orbach (1988), both psychotherapists, wrote a book about women's friendships based on the personal and clinical insights they had gained in working with women and in women's groups since the 1970s. They suggest that issues of jealousy, competition, and envy between women seem to be on the increase along with the rapidly changing gender roles of the last decade. Woolsey and McBain's (1987a) clinical observations and 8 analyses of conflicts experienced in all-woman work groups led them to conclude that when power issues and feelings of jealousy between women are addressed openly, healthy growth and shared empowerment may ensue. If allowed to fester, though, power struggles between women may result in serious reductions in the quality and effectiveness of women's work relationships. Women in today's organizations, then, would appear to be dealing with two issues related to network activities - the difficulty of becoming integrated into men's networks and the potential for problems in maintaining supportive relationships with other women. These issues may have important implications for the advancement process. The findings of a British Columbia, Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development (1979) study suggested that the skills of advancing one's work are learned within the informal network of relationships embedded in the structure of organizations. It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, that difficulties in work relationships may impede career development. One of the conclusions of the British Columbia, Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development (1979) study was that the social character of the organizational process must be addressed as a legitimate area of organizational research in order to move toward truly equal access to career advancement for all persons. In the next section, the problem and research questions that were investigated in the current study are outlined. B. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM As indicated by the literature reviewed earlier in this chapter, traditional patterns of occupational segregation by gender may preclude employment equity for women. Aspects of the prevalent tendency toward homosociality may contribute to the maintenance of vertical segregation by gender within organizations. To date, there have been few studies of the men's and women's networks in organizations. Brass (1985) and Lincoln and Miller (1979) examined the structural characteristics of relationship networks in organizations but did not investigate the activities within the networks. Studies of mentoring (e.g., Alleman, 1986; Alleman, Cochran, Doverspike, & Newman, 1984; Kram, 1985; Schroeder, 1988/1989) have addressed the specific activities of mentoring but 9 have not explored in detail the potentially different relationship styles and needs of women and men. To date, only a limited number of empirical investigations have addressed the issue of gender differences in mentoring among managers (Ragins, 1989). Research on friendship has identified distinct patterns of difference between men's and women's friendships (Aries & Johnson, 1983; Bell, 1981; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Sherrod, 1989; Woolsey & McBain, 1987b). However, these investigations have focused on friendships outside the workplace. There are no known studies that specifically have addressed the relationship between homosocial attitudes and network activities. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate patterns and potential outcomes of homosociality within organizations by: 1. Investigating the relationship between homosocial attitudes and network activities. 2. Examining gender differences in the mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions supplied by same- and cross-gender networks (i.e., investigating the actual relationships aspect of homosociality). 3. Examining the relationship between homosocial attitudes and behaviours and indices of employee outcomes (career- and job-related variables such as promotions, skill development, job satisfaction). The networks were examined from an ego-centered perspective (Alba, 1982). That is, the network data that were collected pertained to small, distinct relationship networks centred around individual respondents in the sample. Respondents were requested to provide various types of information about their own networks. The network structure of the larger organization was not studied. Five general research questions were posed to address key aspects of the problem outlined above: 1. What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? 10 2. What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? 3. Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? 4. How do homosocial attitudes in interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? 5. How do the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? The hypotheses which correspond to each of these research questions are presented at the end of Chapter II (Literature Review). The overall model of variables and research questions is presented in Figure 1. C. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The Employment Equity Act (1986) requires all federally regulated employers of 100 or more persons to carry out Employment Equity strategies and to provide annual reports on their results. The purpose of the Act is: to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada. (Employment Equity Act, 1986, p. 1) The Act further states that employment equity "means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences" (p. 1). The results of this investigation of homosociality - of (a) the tendency of people to prefer and to seek social relationships with same-gender persons, and (b) the different styles of same-Homosocial attitudes 2 Size of same- and cross-gender networks Supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from networks Career- and Job-related outcomes 3 Gender Gender composition of networks (same-gender, cross-gender) Figure 1. Overall model of variables and research questions. (Five research questions were posed to address different aspects of the model. Question numbers corresponding to the particular research questions being addressed in each portion of the model have been placed on the appropriate connecting lines between the variables. In the case of Research Question 4, only the interaction between homosocial attitudes and supportive [mentoring] behaviours was Investigated.) 12 gender relationships for women and men -- provide valuable prerequisite information for designing programs to accommodate the differences between women and men in the workplace. This information could be used to "correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women" (Employment Equity Act, 1986, p. 1), conditions which may result from their exclusion from the networks in which skills and support for career advancement seem to be learned and attained. Much of the tendency toward occupational segregation by gender may be caused by variables operating at an unconscious level in individual men and women, at a level untouched by legislation such as the Employment Equity Act. Homosociality may be one such variable. For example, the preference for males as work associates by both men and women (Woolsey-Toews, 1975) may be related to stereotyped images of gender roles and to unconsciously held beliefs about what is desirable in terms of work relationships with same- and cross-gender persons. At this point in history, it would seem to be important to study homosociality in order to determine its key aspects in the work relationships of women and men. Otherwise, "even the well-intentioned person [in terms of employment equity] is likely to behave in ways that negate those intentions without any awareness of having done so" (Woolsey-Toews, 1975, p. 31). Noe (1988), upon reviewing the research related to women and mentoring, concluded that "few rigorous quantitative studies of the antecedents or outcomes of mentoring have appeared in the organizational behavior literature" (p. 66). The present study addressed this deficit by examining a set of variables (homosocial attitudes) conceptualized as antecedents of mentoring and several variables (career- and job-related variables such as promotions, skill development, job satisfaction) conceptualized as outcomes of mentoring. 13 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter, the theory and research from which the present study emerged are reviewed. The areas reviewed are: homosociality, cross-gender relationships, homosociality and organizational networks, mentoring, and the stages of career development. The hypotheses which emerged from this literature review are presented at the end of the chapter. A. HOMOSOCIALITY Theories of male and female homosociality most directly related to the organizational context are reviewed in the next two subsections. Following that, research on actual same-gender relationships is reviewed. 1. Theories of Male Bonding Four theories are reviewed in this subsection. The first two theories reviewed here -- those of Lionel Tiger (1969) and Jean Lipman-Blumen (1976) -- are very similar. Both suggest that males bond in hierarchical groupings with issues of power, control, and status being the main facets around which bonding occurs. Tiger's (1969) theory is that males have a biologically based predisposition to form strong group bonds with one another "in a variety of situations involving power, force, crucial or dangerous work, and relations with their gods [and to] consciously and emotionally exclude females from these bonds" (p. 112). According to Tiger, current patterns of male bonding reflect and have arisen from the historical male roles of hunter and warrior, roles which necessitated cooperative bonding among men for the purpose of successful hunting and defense. From these early patterns of male bonding evolved the social institutions which formed the backbone of human communities. Tiger's examination of anthropological data on many social institutions - armies, sports organizations, religious structures, politics, secret societies, family systems, and economics -- led him to the conclusion that the public forum is a male forum dominated by hierarchies of adult males. He 14 described the bonds between males as "the spinal column of a community, in this sense: from a hierarchical linkage of significant males, communities derive their intra-dependence, their structure, their social coherence, and in good part their continuity through the past to the future" (p. 60). Tiger (1969) noted that, in contrast to males, females rarely dominate authority structures and seem to lack the strong same-gender bonding tendency evident in males. On the basis of numerous cross-cultural studies of female political behaviour, he concluded that female organizations are relatively obscure and unimportant to the "political structure of their communities and the establishment of a dominance hierarchy (p. 72). While he noted that women do form groups "for some purposes, such as childcare, gathering, and farming, or for simple gregariousness" (p. 72), his research lead him to the conclusion that women's same-gender bonds do not persist over time as do men's. Lipman-Blumen (1976) also notes the widespread presence of male dominance hierarchies from which women are excluded. Unlike Tiger, though, Lipman-Blumen suggests a sociological rather than a biological basis for male bonding and for the exclusion of women from these bonds. Lipman-Blumen speculates that the roots of male bonding are in the historical male roles of hunter and warrior, roles closed to women because of their primary childbearing and child-nursing activities. Hunter and warrior roles placed men in charge of acquiring and protecting the fundamental resources of their society -- territory and food. The dominance hierarchies which developed from these roles have continued into technological times which no longer require such a strict differentiation and stratification of male and female roles. Lipman-Blumen (1976) contends that, beginning in childhood, males are interested in, attracted to, and stimulated by other males. This process is encouraged by the social stratification process which classifies individuals and groups according to their perceived value to society. Men, perceived as being more valuable to society than are women, are systematically placed in more prestigious roles than women. The result of this stratification process is that, until recently, men have been placed in positions of exclusive access to and control over economic, political, educational, legal, and social resources, while women have been restricted to a more limited range 15 of resources -- service, youth, beauty, sexuality, and parenthood. Men, because of their greater resource control, have been more attractive and useful to other men, and to women as well. Men identified with and sought assistance from other men; women, recognizing their own paucity of resources in comparison to men, also looked to men, rather than to other women, for protection and help. Lipman-Blumen (1976) suggests that the homosocial world has existed primarily for the benefit of men; the powerful "old-boy network" of the male world has been an important aid to the control of resources. Women, with relatively little to bargain with in resource exchange relationships that exist beyond the domestic sphere, have had to derive their status indirectly through their relationships with men. While Lipman-Blumen notes the recent development of women's networks outside the traditional domestic realm, she suggests that such networks are still in their infancy. Pleck (1975) takes the theories of Tiger (1969) and Lipman-Blumen (1976) one step farther. He notes the historical pattern of male bonding in which all-male institutions and activities supported male solidarity while devaluing and excluding women. He then focuses on the impact of gender role socialization on men's same- and cross-gender relationships. Summarizing research on male homosocial relationships, he states that "male sociability is closely connected with male sex role training and performance and is not characteristically a medium for self-exploration, personal growth, or the development of intimacy" (p. 235). The social needs met by men's relationships with men, then, "must be met in ways that support male role performance and not in ways that might threaten it" (p. 234). For example, the male executive must have relationships with male clients and co-workers which enable him to "transact business with them and get the emotional support he needs himself, but these relationships cannot be so intimate as to inhibit the competition or self-aggrandizement required of him" (p. 234). Pleck (1975) suggests that the gender role revolution (referred to as the sex role revolution in 1975) is ushering in the possibility of a new type of brotherhood between men, a brotherhood that "transcends both older styles of male solidarity, usually limited in its own right and based on the devaluation of women, as well as more recent male styles of channeling intimacy needs exclusively 16 into relationships with women" (p. 242). He suggests that men, as well as women, have suffered the consequences of limited gender role prescriptions and that they, like women, can draw understanding and strength from others of their own gender as they attempt to come to grips with common issues and experiences as men. This type of male bonding is based on a sense of commonality and support for other men, comparable to that found between feminist women. Pleck (1975) quotes the words of one man discovering this type of bonding with other men. After attending a party given by a group of feminist women, he said: The women there were really high together. The way they were dancing and interacting with each other, it was like they were really celebrating each other, in a beautiful way. And then I realized that thaf s what I wanted with other men, that same sense of celebration and affirmation of ourselves. I never thought that was possible for men, but I know it is now. (p. 241) Sherrod (1987) echoes many of Fleck's (1975) words in his discussion of the economic and social forces which have shaped the nature of men's relationships. Sherrod suggests that the economic forces of the industrial revolution precipitated two major changes in men's friendships. The first was a movement from the norm of shared reliance on kinship-friendship networks in rural villages to the norm of direct competition with other men for work and wages. The second was a concomitant shift from reliance on larger social networks for support to a reliance on women (i.e., wives) for emotional support. Current economic and social changes that are altering women's lives and the structure of the family (e.g., continually increasing participation rates of women in employment outside the home, dual careers, single life styles) may indirectly affect men by forcing them to form different types of bonds with one another. Sherrod (1987) predicts a "resurgence of friendship and intimacy among men" (p. 238). 2. Theories of Female Bonding Theorists of female bonding state that the basis for women's same-gender bonding is affiliation and attachment, a pull toward mutuality in expressive and intimate relationships (Bernard, 1976,1981; Miller, 1976; Smith-Rosenberg, 1975). 17 An historical perspective on female bonding is provided by Jessie Bernard (1981), who wrote extensively about the female homosocial world of the nineteenth century. This world was characterized as the realm of the home and "the heart", a realm in which women, socialized to be specialists in the area of emotions and domestic relationships, took charge while men operated in the separate and larger male sphere of politics and economics. The female world of the nineteenth century offered invaluable support and validation for women. In a society in which women were barred from the dominant male sphere, women had a valued and secure place in their own sphere; women had power and a sense of belonging in their separate world. They were able to meet the majority of their relational needs in intimate and long-lasting relationships with other women, with whom they spent most of their time (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975) - needs which were not met by men because of their socialization toward inexpressivity and coolness. While this traditional women's sphere of "the heart" has eroded in the twentieth century because of geographic mobility, changing gender roles, and an emphasis on heterosexual relationships for both women and men (Bernard, 1981; Pleck, 1975; Smith-Rosenberg, 1975), present-day researchers continue to find evidence of more emotional richness and intimacy in women's same-gender relationships and a greater emphasis on collegiality and task-orientation in men's (Aries & Johnson, 1983; Bell, 1981; Booth, 1972; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Woolsey & McBain, 1987b). Writers such as Tiger (1969) and Lipman-Blumen (1976) failed to tap into the complex and emotionally rich world of relationships between women, presumably because their theories were written from the perspective of traditional male bonding styles, and women's relationships were examined and described reactively. For example, the questions asked at a 1974 symposium (Tiger & Fowler, 1978) that was organized to focus on female social systems, were so androcentric that they nearly obscured direct observations of female behaviour. In the anthropological/sociological studies reported at the symposium, the investigators had studied women to see if they fit a male norm of behaviour, the norm of social stratification according to dominance. The conclusions were that all-female hierarchies, or all-female organizations that are largely female managed, are difficult to find in modern society; that the tendency to form hierarchies may be a trait more common among 18 males than among females; and that when females do organize themselves according to hierarchical structures, that these forms may be different from those of men. While the information about female social behaviour per se that was gained at this symposium was minimal, Tiger (1978) did conclude that further study of the cooperative social structures evident among females was warranted. Writers and researchers such as Jean Baker Miller (1976) and Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) have done just that, noting that women as a group have more highly developed abilities than men in the areas of affiliation, cooperation, and dealing with the emotional side of life. This is not, Miller says, because women are more saintly than men, but because life (or gender role socialization) has led women to the position of being more practiced in cooperation and more able "to seek out and enjoy situations that require that quality" (p. 43). Miller (1976) states that a central feature of women's psychology is that women "stay with, build on, and develop in a context of attachment and affiliation with others" (p. 83). While this quality of "dependency" on relationships has been labelled problematic by theorists writing from a traditionally male perspective which values autonomy, competition, and hierarchical relationships based on status (Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1976), Miller has framed women's affiliative focus as a strength. She and others (Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1983b) suggest that all persons -- both women and men - require significant attachments to others in order to develop. The growing body of literature and research on mentoring and peer relationships in organizations (e.g., Alleman, 1986; Alleman, Cochran, Doverspike, & Newman, 1984; Burke, 1984a, 1984b; Clawson, 1980; Collins & Scott, 1978; Klopf & Harrison, 1981; Kram, 1985; Kram & Isabella, 1985; Ragins, 1989) supports this suggestion. Research on relationship networks in the workplace (British Columbia, MISBD, 1979) indicates that "people do not advance by themselves. They are advanced" (p. 20) by other persons in the workplace with whom they have significant relationships. Men and women learn the skills necessary for career advancement in the context of relationships with superiors and others "who have pushed and challenged them and taught them to handle the organization" (British Columbia, MISBD, 1979, p. 20). 19 Miller (1976) contends that "at the present time, men are not as prepared to know this" (p. 83), to acknowledge that relationships are the means by which individual development proceeds. In contrast, a woman's "sense of self becomes very much organized around being able to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships" (p. 83). Traditionally, then, women have been the specialists in the realm of relationships; they have lived out their lives primarily in the sphere of the home and "the heart" (Bernard, 1981). While women's increasing entry into the paid labour force has changed the context in which many women relate to each other and to men, Woolsey and McBain (1987a) argue that women still tend to bring a "depth of feeling and self-disclosure to their relationships wherever they occur, the work setting included" (p. 585). Present-day working women, and the organizations in which they work, are presented with a challenge: to create and maintain work relationships that are flexible enough to allow women to utilize their affiliative strengths as well as to exercise increasingly the achievement and task-oriented strengths (traditionally more characteristic of men) that are necessary for significant career advancement. 3. Research on the Behaviours and Special Characteristics of Same-Gender Relationships Most of the research related to homosociality at the level of actual relationships presented in this section has been drawn from the research on same-gender friendships. The work of Carroll Smith-Rosenberg (1975) is a well-documented source of information about the richness, complexity, and activities of women's relationships in the nineteenth century. Her work provides some background to twentieth century changes in patterns of same- and cross-gender relationships. Smith-Rosenberg examined the diaries and correspondence of women and men in 35 middle class American families. Her extensive data base included thousands of letters written to women friends, family, spouses, and children between the 1760s and the 1880s. Some family collections were written over entire life spans; one collection included over 100,000 letters in addition to account books and diaries. Smith-Rosenberg (1975) applied information about the social context of mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth century America to the analysis of these writings, suggesting that it was this larger 20 milieu that supported the development of close emotional relationships between women. American society as a whole, and American families in particular, were characterized by strict gender role differentiation, which resulted in distinct female and male spheres. These different worlds were "inhabited by human beings with different values, expectations, and personalities" (p. 9). Contact between men and women was limited and formal, while contact between women was frequent and natural, because of the shared experiences of women's lives: The roles of daughter and mother shaded imperceptibly and ineluctably into each other, while the biological realities of frequent pregnancies, childbirth, nursing, and menopause bound women together in physical and emotional intimacy. It was within just such a social framework, I would argue, that a specifically female world did indeed develop, a world built around a generic and unself-conscious pattern of single-sex or homosocial networks. These supportive networks were institutionalized in social conventions or rituals which accompanied virtually every important event in a woman's life from birth to death, (p. 9) A woman's sphere was inhabited by other women and by children; it was bounded by home, church, and social visits to the homes of other women. Days and weeks could be spent almost entirely with other women, as women helped each other with domestic tasks, shopped together, vacationed together, talked, or shared times of sickness, trouble, or sorrow. Friendships formed within highly integrated networks held together by an inner core of kin --mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, cousins and nieces. Women played a central role in each others' emotional lives; women felt contented and joyful when they were together and experienced isolation and despair when they were separated geographically. Within this secure and understanding world of women, "women could share sorrows, anxieties, and joys, confident that other women had experienced similar emotions" (p. 14). They were valued by each other; women who had little status or power in the male sphere had status and power with other women. Research that considers present-day relationships presents a similar picture. Booth (1972) compared men's and women's participation in friendships, kin relationships, and voluntary organizations in a test of Tiger "s (1969) theory that male same-gender bonds are stronger and more stable than those of women. The data he gathered from 800 American adults 45 years of age and older did not lend any support to Tiger's theory. In fact, the results of Booth's study led him to 21 conclude that it was women who seemed to "have the greater propensity for same-sex bonding" (p. 186). Overall, there were no gender differences in the number of close friends named by the women and men in Booth's study. Both women and men reported that the majority of their close friends were people of the same gender. However, men reported more cross-gender friends than did women. Women's friendships were affectively richer than those of men, as measured by spontaneity of contact and exchange of confidences. As stated by Booth (1972), "Women did things on the spur of the moment with 59 percent of their friends, men with 45 percent.... Women confided in 52 percent of their friends, men in 38 percent" (p. 186). Contrary to Tiger's (1969) theory, Booth found that women were as likely as men to belong to all-female organizations and to show stable patterns of participation in voluntary associations throughout their lives. While men joined more voluntary associations, women committed more time to these endeavours. Men tended to participate in groups of a more instrumental nature (e.g., voluntary organizations associated with economic, political, and military pursuits), while women tended to participate in groups more expressive in nature (e.g., educational, religious, recreational, health- and welfare-related groups). Women led the expressive groups more often than did men, while men assumed leadership of the instrumental groups more often than did women. Finally, in terms of kinship ties, Booth found that women maintained more family ties and had stronger bonds with family than did men. He concluded by noting that "these sex differences probably will diminish in the years to come as sex-role distinctions diminish. The advance in women's civil rights is signaling the change" (p. 192). Despite Booth's (1972) prediction of diminishing gender differences in relationship style, researchers continue to find evidence of more affective richness and intimacy in women's same-gender relationships and a greater emphasis on activities and shared interests in men's (Bell, 1981; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985; Woolsey & McBain, 1987b). The findings of Caldwell and Peplau (1982) are reflective of a common theme that runs through the research: 22 Where the sexes differed was in the nature of their interactions with friends. Women showed a greater interest in emotional sharing. Women preferred talking to activities, and, on several measures, women indicated spending more time talking to a best friend and revealing more about their feelings, problems, and personal relationships. In contrast, men appeared more interested in shared activities. Men preferred activities to talking; they more often got together with a best friend to engage in a particular activity such as a sport; and their conversations with a best friend more often centered on shared activities and interests we found that emotional sharing played a lesser role in men's than women's best same-sex friendships, (p. 731) It should be noted here that these findings of gender differences in same-gender relationships do not mean that men are not capable of being intimate or that women are not capable of engaging in sports activities together; the findings simply indicate that there are consistent modal differences in the friendships of women and men (Sherrod, 1989). However, as discussed by Surrey (1985), while gender differences such as those described above "may at times be quite subtle, and individually and culturally relative, they may represent a difference that results in enormous consequences in areas of critical human interactions" (p. 7). The investigator suggests that continuing gender differences in relationship styles may have implications for the integration or non-integration of men and women into cross-gender networks in the workplace. First, same-gender relationships may be sought in preference to cross-gender relationships for the unique qualities and sense of shared experience that they offer. While not necessarily meaning to exclude members of the other gender from organizational friendship ties, same-gender persons may do so simply because of preferred homosocial patterns of interaction. Second, the level of intimacy experienced in women's same-gender relationships may cause serious difficulties in work relationships (Woolsey & McBain, 1987a). The findings of Briles' (1987) survey of unethical behaviour in business highlight the potential difficulties. She found that when men committed unethical acts, they seemed to act from ego motivations more than women did, and that when women engaged in unethical behaviour, their actions seemed to be more related to envy and retaliations for personal slights. Briles (1987) concluded that the "issue of women's sabotage of each other often stems from a basic confusion between professional and personal relationships in business" (p. 269). The preceding discussion has focused on actual same-gender relationships. Homosociality also includes a symbolic or ideological level of bonding which is reflected in individual attitudes and actions in regard to persons of one's own gender in general. At this ideological level, most women in the nineteenth century, for example, would have adhered to the ideology of women's sphere as the realm of the home and "the heart". Relationships with other women would have been limited to activities within this realm. Melder (1977) notes the beginnings of a sisterhood of American women who protested this limited sphere as early as the year 1800. The feminist movement has continued to this day, bringing with it changes in gender roles and relationship patterns for both women and men. Some of the pertinent issues related to these changes are discussed in the next sections. 4. Homosocial Attitudes Homosocial attitudes refer to an "individual's affect, behaviour and cognitions regarding the same sex in general" (Woolsey, 1987a, p. 117). These attitudes have not been well defined in the literature or by research undertaken to date. However, theory and research related as closely as possible to homosocial attitudes are discussed in this section to provide a theoretical basis for the measurement of homosocial attitudes in the organizational context. The current discussion includes descriptions of the subscales of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Bonds Scale) because the structure of homosocial attitudes that was established by factor analyses of the items contained in this scale (Woolsey et al., 1988a) provides one of the most comprehensive descriptions of homosocial attitudes developed to date. The work of other theorists and researchers is interspersed with the descriptions and conceptual analysis of the Bonds subscales to complete the discussion of the social context in which homosocial attitudes have developed. The factor-analytic work of Woolsey et al. (1988a) has established a three-part structure of homosocial attitudes for men and a five-part structure for women. (A more complete description of the development of the Bonds Scale is contained in Chapter III [Method].) The five separate aspects of homosocial attitudes, each measured by a separate subscale of the Bonds Scale, are: Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, Jealousy (women only), and Identification 24 (women only), the current discussion begins with a brief description of the subscales common to men and women: Cross-Gender Preference. Cross-gender persons are preferred or valued over same-gender persons in certain situations, usually in relationships based on power or status differences. For example, a person with a high level of Cross-Gender Preference would prefer that persons of higher status or authority be of the other gender. Same-Gender Preference. Same-gender persons are preferred or valued over cross-gender persons in certain situations, usually in relationships based on equality or similarity. For example, a person with a high level of Same-Gender Preference would prefer that his or her peers (e.g., co-workers, teammates) be of his or her own gender. Valuing. Relationships with same-gender persons are valued in and of themselves because they contribute something important to the individual's life. These Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing subscales are based, most broadly, on Lipman-Blumen's (1976) definition of homosociality as "the seeking, enjoyment, and/or preference for the company of the same sex" (p. 16). The attitudes measured by these subscales arise from the differential socialization practices and reward structures for women and men. As for the theoretical underpinnings of these homosocial attitudes, two interconnected threads appear to be woven throughout the literature and research. The first thread is that gender roles have had a profound impact on the social bonding patterns of women and men. Traditionally, women and men have been socialized to enact different roles and, hence, to operate in predominantly separate spheres: for women, the nurturant, expressive domain of relationships and the home, and for men, the active, competitive domain of work, sports, and political activity. 25 Significant changes in gender roles and expectations have occurred since the resurgence of the women's movement in the late 1960s. Until that time, the spheres of men and women generally overlapped only for the purpose of heterosexual pair-bonding and procreation; otherwise, men associated primarily with other men and women related predominantly to other women as they engaged in the activities sanctioned by their gender roles (Bernard, 1981; Cott, 1977; Lipman-Blumen, 1976; Melder, 1977; Pleck, 1975; Tiger, 1969). Homosociality, then, has been a prevalent social norm that has arisen from the different life experiences of women and men. The second thread is that the devaluation of women and of traits considered to be feminine has served to exclude women from men's networks (Lipman-Blumen, 1976; Pleck, 1975; Tiger, 1969), to decrease the quality and valuing of relationships between women (Caplan, 1981,1985a, 1985b; Toews, 1973; Woolsey-Toews, 1975), and to limit the level of intimacy that men are able to attain, particularly in their relationships with other men (Lewis, 1978; Pleck, 1975). Aspects of these two closely connected threads are expanded upon in tandem in the discussion which follows. Tiger (1969) and Lipman-Blumen (1976) suggest that male same-gender bonding and female cross-gender bonding are based upon an attraction to power and status, the end result of which is a hierarchical bonding pattern among dominant males which excludes women, children, and non-dominant men. Under this system, women do not have direct access to power and resources; they must derive their power indirectly through relationships with men (Miller, 1976; Lipman-Blumen, 1976; Tiger, 1969), while men, in order to maintain status and power, must relate primarily to other men in a manner consistent with the prevailing "standards of the male homosocial world" (Lipman-Blumen, 1976, p. 24). Miller (1976) contends that, because of these structural constraints on women's power, women often have been in the position of having to compete with each other for relationships with men in order to acquire resources and power, rather than assisting each other toward empowerment. In the traditional style of male bonding, men have aggregated in ways which have supported male gender role performance (Pleck, 1975), meaning that, when together, men have assisted each other in maintaining a sense of masculinity, dominance, physical and intellectual prowess, and 26 emotional control (Lewis, 1978; Pleck, 1975). Men who have been unable or unwilling to adhere to the strict rules of the male homosocial world generally have been marginalized and excluded from the traditional bonds of the male world (Lipman-Blumen, 1976). Indeed, the expression of vulnerability by men has been viewed as a betrayal of masculinity, with fears of homosexuality being triggered by incidents of emotional intimacy between men (Lewis, 1978; Pleck, 1975). In contrast, according to Bernard (1976,1981) and Miller (1976), the basis of female same-gender bonding is affiliation and attachment. Furthermore, Safilios-Rothschild's (1981) summary of some research findings suggests that women play an emotionally sustaining, supportive role in their friendships with both women and men; this intimacy and support is not reciprocated by men. Men, not socialized toward learning the skills necessary to maintain intimate relationships, have tended to seek intimacy in their cross-gender relationships with women (Pleck, 1975; Safilios-Rothschild, 1981). There is some research evidence indicating that both women and men tend to prefer women as associates in intimate personal relationships, in circumstances in which personal problems are discussed and confidences revealed (Toews, 1973; Woolsey-Toews, 1975). Similar findings were noted in Rose's (1985b) study of same- and cross-gender friendships: both women and men reported receiving more acceptance and intimacy from women than from men. Woolsey-Toews (1975; Toews, 1973) conducted the first known empirical investigation of the concept of attitudinal homosociality. At the time of her initial study, she called this concept "same-sex affiliation or group belongingness" (Woolsey-Toews, 1975, p. 27); in subsequent writing (Woolsey, 1987a, 1987b), she has adopted the term homosociality. The purpose of her study was to investigate how sex-role stereotypic beliefs relate to same-gender affiliation, with her primary emphasis being on the same-gender affiliation of women. Because of the foundational nature of this study, it is described in detail. Two hundred and ninety-six female and male university students, the majority of whom were single, completed the short form of the Sex-Role Stereotype Questionnaire (Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970; Clarkson, Vogel, Broverman, Broverman, Rosenkrantz, 1970; Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, & Broverman, 1968) and the Affiliation Questionnaire (Toews, 27 1973), developed for the purpose of Toews' (1973) study. The Sex-Role Questionnaire was used to assess the extent to which positively and negatively stereotyped feminine (warmth and expressiveness) and masculine (competency) qualities were incorporated into respondents' self descriptions. The Affiliation Questionnaire tapped 10 aspects of same-gender affiliation. Five factors assessed attitudes toward relationships with same- and cross-gender persons in five different spheres of activity: casual social activities, work, dependency relationships (i.e., situations in which one must depend upon a leader or a person of higher status), important tasks or crisis situations, and personal friendship. The remaining five factors measured pride in, loyalty to, and attitudes toward one's own gender as a group, and willingness to accept sex-role labels and to be described as a typical person of one's own gender. Toews' (1973) results indicated that men and women had very different styles of same-gender bonding; on 9 of the 10 factors, the results for men and women were significantly different. For example, on the factor measuring acceptance of sex-role labels, the women indicated that they did not like being described as feminine; the men, on the other hand, enjoyed being seen as masculine. On the factors assessing work relationships, crisis situations or important tasks, and casual socializing, both men and women preferred men as companions. In other words, everyone rated men as preferred "playmates, workmates and as better people to have around when there's trouble or when you need a leader" (Woolsey-Toews, 1975, p. 29). For women, there was a significant interaction between personally held sex-role stereotypes and their degree of same-gender affiliation. The more competent and, hence, less stereotypically feminine a woman reported herself to be, the less likely it was that she would evidence pride in women as a group and a sense of loyalty to other women, and the more likely it was that she would indicate a wish to disassociate herself from other women. Women who described themselves as being low in competence -- that is, the most stereotypically feminine women -- indicated the strongest sense of affiliation with other women. Being competent seemed to mean foregoing relationships with other women. The women who described themselves as the most competent were the most likely of all to express preferences for men as work associates, leaders, and 28 companions. This finding, combined with the fact that men expressed strong preferences for other men as workmates, has serious implications for women trying to advance in the work world. In this study conducted in the early 1970s, neither men nor competent women indicated a sense of bonding with women on the factors related to work and leadership. The results of more recent research (Liden, 1985; Trempe, Rigny, & Haccoun, 1985) indicate that it is the degree of upward influence held, rather than gender, that is related to satisfaction with or preference for one leader over another. Because women, until recently, have not possessed significant access to power and resources outside the domestic realm, they have not engaged in the type of resource exchange relationships with each other that are characteristic of men's same-gender relationships (Lipman-Blumen, 1976). One result of the increasing entry of women into the paid labour force is that some women now are able to offer to others the instrumental support and access to resources previously available only from men. However, because women have tended to enter at and to remain in, lower level and lower paying positions, the majority of employed women have remained in the position of having much less than men to offer each other in terms of assistance with career advancement and resource acquisition. Traditionally, women seeking career advancement in male-dominated organizations have had to seek assistance from men rather than from other women. For example, Hennig and Jardim (1977) studied the life and career histories of 25 women who had begun careers in business and industry around the time of the Great Depression and had reached top management positions by 1970. They found that all of these women had male mentors who were key influences on the success of their careers. These 25 women focused on the development of competence and on career advancement for the first 10 years of their careers. They had little time for personal relationships other than the key relationship with their male mentor. In contrast, and as suggested by Kanter (1977), women located in dead-end jobs may substitute social recognition for the rewards of career advancement. Kanter (1977) contends that "it is low-opportunity people who seem to find their greatest satisfactions at work through connections with others" (p. 147). Hence, women who perceive little opportunity for career advancement may focus even more on personal relationships with other women as a major source of job satisfaction rather than attempting to achieve job satisfaction through successfully attaining desirable promotions and assisting other women to do the same. The development of resource exchange relationships between women has been both assisted and attenuated by feminist reactions to restrictive and devalued female gender roles. The traditional female gender role and relationships between women were supported by the structure and norms of the strong "female world" (Bernard, 1976,1981) of the nineteenth century, a world which has eroded in this century. Since the origins of the feminist movement in the early 1800s (Melder, 1977), the active reevaluation of women's position within society by women who have felt severely restricted by the female gender role has precipitated both a new sense of bonding or sisterhood among feminist women and a series of powerful divisions among women of different persuasions in regard to female gender roles (Caplan, 1981,1985a, 1985b; Melder, 1977; Rawlings & Carter, 1977; Woolsey & McBain, 1987a). As stated by Nancy Sahli (1978): In a sense, the feminist movement itself subverted the heightened emotional commitment which had typified women's relationships during most of the nineteenth century. As women began to be perceived by themselves and others as being capable of rational, intellectual thought, it seems evident that they would want to use this ability, rather than their emotions, to make decisions advancing their position vis a vis the male world, and, in their search for equality with men, that they would perceive this capacity as being on a higher status scale than that of the emotions, (p. 26) Some women, then, in their attempts to operate on an equal status with men, have devalued traditional feminine qualities. For example, some women in higher professional and organizational ranks have been found to identify more strongly with the masculine aspects of their personalities (Fagenson, 1985; Hennig & Jardim, 1977) and to reject the traditional female qualities (Dellacava & Engel, 1979). This rejection or devaluation of feminine traits has been shown to result in a decreased sense of bonding with other women, both in actual relationships and in general attitudes toward other women (Dellacava & Engel, 1979; Marshall, 1984; Toews, 1973; Woolsey-Toews, I975). Dellacava and Engel (1979), Fagenson (1985), and Laws (1975) interpret this phenomenon in terms of the structural constraints placed on women in high-level professional careers. Dellacava and 30 Engel (1979) suggest that in order to be successful in a male-dominated career, women must identify strongly with masculine norms and reject the feminine: Professional women need to see themselves as special and unique. Women in our society are socialized with the expectation that they will be wives and mothers and that those roles ought to be the key statuses in their identity structure. Consequently, professional women have an internal conflict, and women who opt for the traditional roles represent an important [but rejected] aspect of their [professional women's] own identities. To remain committed to the professional role means that one must be and remain estranged from (marginal to) other women. The latter must be a negative reference group, they must be rejected. In the baldest terms: given the present society and its culture, the professional woman has no choice but to remain uninvolved with other women and their concerns, (p. 508) Kanter (1981) suggests that the rejection of other women by upwardly mobile professional women is a result of upper-level women's token or minority status in their work groups. She contends that "to the extent that tokens accept their exceptional status, dissociate themselves from others of their category, and turn against them, tokens may be denying parts of themselves and engaging in self-hate" (p. 83), thus producing considerable inner tension even though their work performance may be successful. This phenomenon of strongly identifying with masculine norms and rejecting the feminine does not appear to be true for all professional women in male-dominated careers. McBain and Woolsey (1986) studied the career and life role aspirations (career, home and family, and personal) of 29 women in their final year of a Bachelor of Commerce programme. While their most preferred roles for the projected five-year period following their graduation were professional roles, they did not indicate any rejection of the more traditional roles of wife, mother, and homemaker. These results are supported by Yogev (1983) who stated that: Data on career aspirations imply that the career-marriage conflict is rapidly diminishing in importance. Its persistence as an issue for discussion is more a function of educators and counselors than the perceptions of women themselves, especially of young women, (p. 224) As more and more women enter the paid work force and become an increasing presence in previously male-dominated areas, the pressure for professional women to dissociate from other 31 women would appear to be diminishing. The remaining two homosocial attitudes, as measured by the Bonds Between Women Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988a), represent two aspects of the struggle to develop supportive, affirming relationships between women who, as members of a "minority" group, have special tensions in their relationships that are not seen in relationships between "majority" group members (men). The two subscales are: Jealousy. Jealousy and other such negative feelings between women are a manifestation of the in-group aggression seen in other minority groups. Jealousy between women precludes or breaks down in-group ties and mutual support between women. Identification. Women identify with other women as members of a disadvantaged social group, in a pattern similar to that observed in other minority groups (e.g., ethnic or racial minorities). This identification may be expressed in various ways: pride in the accomplishments of other women, joining in collective efforts to improve the position of women in society, and making a special effort to help other women as individuals. Rawlings and Carter's (1977) adaptation of Allport's (1955) minority group theory provides the main theoretical framework for the homosocial attitudes of Identification and Jealousy. Rawlings and Carter contend that while all women may not experience or perceive themselves to be the recipients of prejudice or discrimination, low social status is accorded to women as a group. Women's low social status is a result of prevalent negative images of women in the culture as a whole and of barriers to women's full participation in social, political, and economic spheres. To lessen the effect of this cultural devaluation, women have developed ego defenses similar to those of other victims of discrimination. These ego defenses can be either "intropunitive" or "extropunitive" in form; that is, the anger that results from being a victim of discrimination can be turned inward to one's own group or outward to the dominant group. 32 Intropunitive ego defenses include denial of membership in one's own group (i.e., lack of Identification) and in-group aggression such as competing with other women, back-biting or gossiping about other women, and putting down other women. The Jealousy subscale represents this type of in-group aggression among women. Intropunitive defenses serve to erode in-group ties because the anger which results from unjust treatment is directed toward other women. The extropunitive defense of strengthening in-group ties (e.g., by establishing support groups for women, engaging in cooperative political action) is, in some ways, the converse of denial of membership. As defined, strengthening in-group ties represents the presence of Identification with other women. The presence of this extropunitive ego defense would tend to enhance the likelihood of supportive relationships between women. The dynamic of either identifying with or dissociating from members of one's own group was described, in part, in the preceding presentation of theoretical framework for Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The following study by Marshall (1984) describes how women can move from a position of denying their own femaleness and avoiding relationships with women to a position of identifying with other women. Marshall (1984) conducted interviews with 30 women managers, all but four of whom lived in or around London, England. Half were managers in book publishing companies and half in retailing companies. They ranged in age from 26 to 50. Four respondents in the publishing industry were directors, four were in senior management positions, and seven were in middle management positions. Two of the respondents in the retail industry were directors, eight were senior management, and five were middle management. From Marshall's description of the difficulty she had in locating suitable women for her sample, it can be surmised that her sample was drawn from skewed groups (15% or less women) (Kanter, 1977). The purpose of Marshall's interviews was to gain an understanding of the women's lives as wholes, with a focus on their career development. Only a few of Marshall's findings -- those related to the issue of managing the awareness of being female ina male-dominated environment ~ are reported here. 33 Marshall (1984) divided her sample into three groups, according to their method of managing their awareness of being female. One group, the majority of the respondents, were strongly opposed to identifying themselves as disadvantaged because of their gender. Most of these women viewed the Women's Movement as "complaining too much"; they stated that being a woman was irrelevant. The women in this group often contradicted themselves with passionate discussions of behaviour or attitudes they had adapted to counteract the disadvantages of being female. The main tactic used by this group of women was to dull their awareness of being women. They identified themselves as particular cases separate from women as a group. They engaged in private strategies for survival and career achievement and, being successful at this, saw no reason to identify with other women as a group. Some of these women chose to minimize their interactions with other women at work, in order to decrease the chances of being identified with other women. This group of women might be expected to receive low scores on the Identification and Same-Gender Preference scales of the Bonds Between Women Scale. Another group (three women) expressed painful awareness of the disadvantages of being female in a male-dominated world. All three of these women had been prompted by recent circumstances to become acutely aware of themselves as women, thus shattering the previous denial which had maintained a relative calm. All three were dealing with issues of identity and their attitudes and feelings were shifting dramatically as they developed new perspectives. None had yet developed new perspectives or values which enabled them to be comfortable with their awareness of gender. A third group, representing about a third of the total sample, had already established a clear and comfortable sense of themselves as women. Most of these women had experienced prejudice and discrimination because they were women and were very aware of the inequalities in reward between themselves and their male colleagues. Marshall (1984) summarized their position with this statement: These managers showed greater concern about the position of women as a group, and of themselves as women, than did the majority of interviewees. They brought analyses along these lines to their answers, but seemed personally untroubled by 34 them. Some translated these attitudes into an advocacy of women's rights. Others took up the possibility of discrimination against them as a challenging gauntlet. Several of the latter expressed an edge of bitterness or resentment, but this was typically balanced by cynicism and self interest. 'But I wouldn t change it, its [sic] exciting and challenging' was a typical comment, (p. 153) These women might be expected to receive high scores on the Identification scale of the Bonds Between Women Scale and to report more women in their networks than the first group of women. Three publications (Briles, 1987; Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1988; Woolsey & McBain, 1987a) have documented the potential destructfveness of work relationships between women when they are characterized by high levels of jealousy. The results of Briles' (1987) survey of unethical behaviour in business indicated that when women commit unethical acts, they "more often act out of jealousy, envy, or fear; whereas men tend to act more from ego motivations" (p. 20). The women in Briles' (1987) study reported a different character to the unethical behaviour they had experienced from men and women: When the women in our study reported unethical behavior by men, it usually revolved around issues of sexual harassment, discrimination in employment, and failure to be promoted. But their reports of unethical behavior by other women concerned issues of power and competition, reactions to personal slights and envy. (Briles, 1987, p. 88) Unethical acts between women were characterized by vengefulness, secretiveness, manipulation, back-stabbing, and a sense of character assassination. Eichenbaum and Orbach (1988), writing from the personal and clinical experience they had gained in working with women and in women's groups since the 1970s, state that "envy is among the most painful feelings women experience toward other women" (Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1988, p. 92). Over the past ten years, as gender roles and women's expectations have changed, they have observed an increased incidence of envy between women, so much so that it is "threatening to disrupt even the best of female friendships" (Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1988, p. 92). They describe the following dynamics: 35 One woman's success is often threatening to another. But why? The answer has been clearly expressed by hundreds of women we have worked with. They describe feeling deserted, left, abandoned as the other woman moves on and develops. It feels as though the successful one is turning her back, leaving her friend to stay stuck in the space they once shared. At the same time the woman who is a success feels alone in the new and unknown space. (Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1988, pp. 94-95) Woolsey and McBain's (1987a) clinical observations and analyses led them to a similar conclusion: the professional success or personal power of one woman may give rise to feelings of jealousy, rage, and powerlessness in another woman who sees no direct route toward success for herself. If not handled carefully, the resulting conflict between the two women can have devastating consequences for their relationship and for their productivity at work. From these descriptions, it is clear that high levels of jealousy and threat in relationships between women preclude the development and maintenance of supportive work relationships between women. Writers such as Forisha and Goldman (1981) suggest that women, rather than rejecting each other, can be of invaluable support and practical assistance to one another "as they move out of traditional female systems and into those dominated by males" (p. 149). They contend that because women can rarely become a part of male support networks in organizations, they must establish a parallel support system of their own. Establishing a women's support network means valuing and preferring other women enough to identify with them and to assist them in career advancement, rather than focusing exclusively on relationships with men (cross-gender preference) in attempts to achieve career success. Jealousy between women is an issue that must be addressed and worked through if women are to develop consistently supportive relationships with one another. 5. The Relationship Between Homosocial Attitudes and Behaviour One of the main purposes of the present study was to assess the relationship between homosocial attitudes and specific behaviours (degree of relationship formation with same- and cross-gender persons, as indicated by the number of persons listed as network members; the level of mentoring behaviours received; and the levels of relationship provisions received). At this point, it 36 should be noted that, in the current study, behaviours were not directly observed. Rather, respondents' perceptions of behaviours served as the measure of the behaviours. Nevertheless, it seems important to discuss some issues concerning the relationship between homosocial attitudes and behaviour. Baron and Byrne's (1987) discussion of attitudes, and their summary of research that has examined the relationship between attitudes and behaviour, formed the theoretical basis for the current discussion of the relationship between homosocial attitudes and behaviour. All references in this subsection to the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988a) are the extrapolations of the current writer, not of Baron and Byrne. Baron and Byrne (1987) define attitudes as "lasting, general evaluations of people (including oneself), objects, or issues" (p. 116)- lasting, in that attitudes tend to persist over time; and general, in that the evaluation tends to involve some degree of abstraction. Consistent with this definition, the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988a) was designed to measure attitudes toward same-gender persons and relationships in general, attitudes which are believed, but not yet proven, to persist over time. Baron and Byrne (1987) state that most psychologists believe that attitudes have three components - affect, behaviour, and cognition: The affect component refers to positive or negative emotions - our gut-level feelings about something. The behavior component involves our intentions to act in certain ways, to engage in behaviors that are somehow relevant to our attitudes. Finally, the cognition component refers to the thinking and interpreting that goes into forming or using an attitude. Each attitude, then, is made up of a cluster of feelings, likes and dislikes, behavioral intentions, thoughts, and ideas, (p. 116) The Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Bonds Scale) captures aspects of all three of these dimensions. The Bonds Scale is composed of three subscales (for men) and five subscales (for women) which measure different aspects of homosocial attitudes. Each subscale is composed of a cluster of items, each of which represents a cognition, behavioural intention, preference, like or dislike, or feeling about same-gender relationships or persons in general. 37 Baron and Byrne (1987) cite Wicker's (1969) review of studies that examined the link between attitudes and behaviour. Wicker found that, in study after study, attitudes and behaviour were weakly or negligibly correlated. Since the time of Wicker's (1969) review, however, new evidence has indicated that, under certain conditions, attitudes can predict behaviour accurately. Baron and Byrne (1987) list several important factors which determine the strength of the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. The first factor discussed by Baron and Byrne is attitude specificity. Citing the review of research conducted by Ajzen and Fishbein (1977), Baron and Byrne suggest that "to predict overt behavior from attitudes, it is usually more effective to look at specific, narrow, and precise attitudes instead of general or global ones" (p. 141). Ajzen and Fishbein found that studies measuring global attitudes showed weak or negligible correlations with behaviour, whereas studies examining specific attitudes showed strong correlations with behaviour. A visual inspection of the Bonds subscales and items reveals that the Cross-Gender Preference and Same-Gender Preference subscales are the most specific of the five subscales; therefore, the strongest relationships between attitude and behaviour would be expected for these subscales. The other three subscales (Valuing, Jealousy, and Identification) are also quite specific, although not quite as specific as the first two scales mentioned. Therefore, the relationships between these three subscales and behaviour might be expected to be somewhat less strong than for the first two subscales. The second factor listed by Baron and Byrne as affecting the strength of the attitude-behaviour relationship is the strength and accessibility of the attitude. Strong attitudes - those that are more accessible or more readily brought to mind - have been found to predict behaviour more effectively than weak ones. Two factors are related to attitude strength. First, "attitudes formed by direct personal experience tend to be stronger and tend to predict behavior better than other attitudes [e.g., those passively acquired by observation]" (Baron & Byrne, 1987, p. 141). Creating an example that would be relevant to the current study, one might infer (from Baron and Byrne's work) that persons who have had direct personal experiences with both women and men in the workplace have had more opportunities to form experienced-based as opposed to observation-based attitudes 38 than persons whose work contacts have been limited to one gender. Baron and Byrne suggest that having a vested interest in the issue in question also increases the strength of the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. Again, to create an example relevant to the present study, one might say that if relationships with both women and men are perceived as important to career advancement, then attitudes toward these relationships will have direct personal relevance. In summary, the more often a person has "thought about a particular attitude, the more likely it is to come up again and to influence... behavior" (Baron & Byrne, 1987, p. 142). Citing the work of Fazio, Powell, and Herr (1983), Baron and Byrne (1987) contend that: If accessibility is high, then, even general attitudes can exert a strong influence on behavior. This has to occur through a three-step process. First, something calls the general attitude to mind. Second, the general attitude influences how the person perceives the situation, "coloring" judgements and interpretations. The general attitude operates like a schema in creating expectations and guiding attention, encoding, and retrieval. Third, behavior is determined by these judgements and interpretations of the immediate situation.... If the general attitude is never accessed, it won t affect behavior, (p. 142) B. CROSS-GENDER RELATIONSHIPS Changing gender roles and women's increasing entry into the labour market are precipitating changes in cross-gender relationships as well as in same-gender relationships (Sherrod, 1987). Colwill (1982) contends that, in the modern workplace, women and men are meeting on common turf and a new kind of partnership is being forged between them, a partnership based on the ability of all human beings to be masculine (to be assertive, to assume leadership, to make decisions) and to be feminine (able to be sensitive, emotionally expressive, and considerate of the needs of others). This is a time of transition in which new rules and norms for cross-gender relationships in the workplace are evolving (Safilios-Rothschild, 1981). As stated by Colwill (1982): One of the adjustments that many husbands and wives have made in the past decade and that many more will make in the next decade is the waiving of exclusive rights to the role of opposite-sex friend of the spouse. While sexual exclusivity will probably continue to be a marital ideal in the foreseeable future, it is inconceivable that men and women will work together as peers and not form social ties ranging from casual acquaintance to intimate friendship, (p. 49) 39 The changes envisaged by Colwill are in direct contrast to the separation between the male and female worlds in the nineteenth century. Smith-Rosenberg (1975) noted that in the letters and diaries of young women, references to women and men were characteristically different. Relationships with other women were characterized by emotional intimacy and spontaneity while relationships with men frequently lacked these qualities. Men were represented as "an other or out group, segregated into different schools, supported by their own male network of friends and kin, socialized to different behavior, and coached to a proper formality in courtship behavior" (pp. 20-21). While young women sought marriage and domesticity, in their writings they referred to young men as distant and held at bay. Cross-gender relationships were very formal. While most cross-gender relationships today are not characterized by this degree of formality, social ties between women and men can pose dilemmas. Clawson and Kram (1984) state that: In most cross-gender cases nowadays, the coach or mentor is a male and the protege is a female, but more and more women in management are also having to ask themselves the question that men ask: How do I manage developmental relationships with subordinates of the other sex and at the same time manage the possible pitfalls associated with close male-female working relationships? (p. 23) Kram's (1985) findings in her study of mentoring relationships indicated that the friendship aspect of mentoring is more limited in cross-gender relationships than in same-gender ones. Men and women avoided interactions in informal settings because of concerns that these interactions would be interpreted sexually both by the parties involved and by other organization members. As a consequence, important collegial interactions, which so often occur in informal settings, were missed. Some female executives in Reich's (1986) study also noted difficulties in cross-gender relationships. They commented that mentoring relationships with males sometimes became sexual, and that men's offers to assist women were sometimes sexual advances in disguise. Concerns about keeping the level of intimacy in cross-gender relationships to an appropriate level can preclude the closeness which enables a coach or support person to have a greater effect on the subordinate's learning (Clawson, 1980). 40 C. HOMOSOCIALITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS Over the past 15 years, a plethora of writers in both the popular and academic literature have discussed the negative effects on women's career development of being excluded from men's networks (e.g., Abramson, 1979; British Columbia, MISBD, 1979; Forisha & Goldman, 1981; Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Josefowitz, 1980; Kanter, 1977; Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Lovelady-Dawson, 1981; Riger & Galligan, 1980; Viega, 1976). During this same period, women's networks have sprung up across Canada (Fraser & Hendry, 1982) to provide women with "Psychic Turf" (Steinem, 1982) -- a place of validation and information-sharing among women. As summarized by Black (1982): Groups run for and by women are critical. They are our "Psychic Turf', our place to discover who we are or could become. Network participation will allow us to become whole persons. They provide a time out from our roles as mothers, wives, and workers and help us to develop the skills necessary for our work self, that part of self which has traditionally been assigned to the males of our culture, (p. 12) The theory behind the establishment of women's networks in the workplace is that: Women, academic women and other professionals, tend to be unaware of the unspoken expectations of the male work world, even the most competent and highly-trained women. Seldom do they have the opportunity to become part of the informal information networks that are such an important part of any organization. (Power, 1981, p. vii) The creation of women's networks is designed to address this deficit, to help women to actualize their full potential academically or professionally by providing an alternate source of information and support. While in theory the establishment of women's networks should assist women's career development and add to their overall job satisfaction, there are two factors that work against the formation of effective supportive relationships between women. First, certain patterns of homosocial attitudes may preclude the development of supportive relationships. For example, a woman with the following pattern of homosocial attitudes is unlikely to develop supportive work relationships with other women: high levels of Jealousy and Cross-Gender Preference, and low levels of Same-Gender 41 Preference, Valuing, and Identification. This woman will be much more likely to develop relationships with men in her workplace and to exclude women from her relationship constellation. Second, traditional patterns of female homosociality at a behavioural level (i.e., women's proclivity to form intimate relationships, regardless of the setting) may cause difficulties in work-based relationships between women. While aspects of both of these factors have been developed throughout this chapter, further discussion of the work context in which women's relationships are to develop, or not to develop, is warranted. 1. Independent Achievement Versus Development In Relationship The work of Hennig and Jardim (1977) provides some insight into the difficulty facing women in their integration into male-dominated organizations. In 1973, they began in-depth interviews with 45 women in senior management positions in a large public utility and 63 women in management positions in the banking industry. Their ages ranged from 27 to 58 and all but one had worked continuously since finishing high school or college. A significant theme that emerged from the analysis of these interviews was the reliance of these women on individual competence and self-improvement. They believed that their superior performance alone would result in their being chosen for advancement. This belief was founded on the premise that promotions would occur according to the formal system of roles, policies, and definitions put forth by the organization. They made no mention of "the informal system of relationships and information sharing, ties of loyalty and of dependence, of favors granted and owed, of mutual benefit, of protection - which men unfailingly and invariably take into account to however greater or lesser a degree" (Hennig & Jardim, 1977, p. 31). Unaware of the important function of this informal system, individual women were left disappointed and immobilized when the formal system failed to reward them with career advancement. As a contrast to the information gained in the interviews with these 108 women, Hennig and Jardim (1977) examined the life and career histories of 25 women who had begun their careers around the time of the Great Depression, and who had reached top management positions in 42 American business and industry by 1970. They found that the assumptions and attitudes shared by these 25 women were in marked contrast to those of the previous 108 women. These 25 women began their careers working for lower-level male executives in manufacturing, retailing, banking, insurance, finance, consumer goods, chemical industry, or consulting firms. A few of the 25 changed jobs within the first two years. Then, for the next 30 years, all were employed by the same firm. They established close relationships with their male bosses who supported, encouraged, taught, and backed them in dealings with male customers and clients and other men in the company. The women were sustained by these relationships: The boss acted as sales agent for the woman wherever he sent her, both inside and outside of the company. He used his reputation to develop hers, and his respect from others to gain acceptance for her. In times of direct confrontation with any group or individual, he would act as a buffer and place himself between the woman and her opponent. He was the protector and she the protected. His support helped provide her with the extra confidence she needed to take on new responsibilities, new tests of her competence and new positions. He reinforced her own emphasis on competence as an issue of paramount importance. (Hennig & Jardim, 1977, p. 157) These relationships provided the women with the foundation they needed to gain new and broader skills. And acquire skills they did, each becoming more competent at her own job, the job below her, and the job above her than any man available. This level of competence, however, was attained at great personal cost: for the first 10 years of their careers, they had little time for personal relationships, visiting family, or vacations. Most remained single until at least age 35, few maintained a long-term relationship with a man outside work, and the majority had only one or two close women friends (most frequently these were sisters or other relatives). Relationships with their male peers were few and tended to be direct, factual, work-centred, and emotionally distant, a strategy employed to avoid being accused of acting like a woman. The deep and long-lasting friendship with their boss was the one exception to this pattern. During the first 10 years of their careers, each woman began as the secretary or administrative assistant to one man and moved upward in the organization with him, at his request, as he advanced. By 1970, each of these women managed to be successful in a male-dominated system 43 by putting in extraordinary amounts of personal effort to achieve a high level of competence and by aligning herself with a man with enough power in the organization to help her navigate herself through it. Each woman could not have made it without the strong support of her male ally. 2. The Psychology of Tokenism The pattern exemplified by the 25 successful women in Hennig and Jardim's (1977) study has been defined as tokenism by Laws (1975). Laws contends that tokenism, "defined as a form of interclass mobility.... is likely to be found wherever a dominant group is under pressure to share privilege, power, or other desirable commodities with a group which is excluded" (p. 51). A member of an excluded group is granted mobility into the dominant group's domain via a significant relationship with a member of the dominant group. However, the quality and quantity of mobility is severely restricted. The Token, as a member of a numerically underrepresented group, functions on the dominant group's turf only under license from the dominant group. The Token remains in a marginal position, never becoming an equal member of the dominant group. The Token and her Sponsor develop a special relationship in terms of affection, frequency of interaction, and complementary exchanges. The Token and Sponsor provide confirmation for each other. The Sponsor vouches for the Token, shapes her role performance, and exerts social control over the behaviours of other members of the dominant group toward her. Laws (1975) presents tokenism within the gender-class system which assigns to men, as a class, higher status than women: Women's differential access to opportunities and rewards makes them a disadvantaged group, in spite of their numerical dominance. Different evaluation contributes to an image of women as inferior. And the expectation of different attributes operates within a framework in which male is normal, and different is deviant. Thus tokenism must include techniques for neutralizing or managing deviance, (p. 53) Women, then, are defined as deviant within a male-dominated system. However, it is common in both classes (men and women) to deny the effects of gender on opportunity structures, aspiration, and achievement. Laws (1975) contends that "the cultural denial of gender classes and 44 the disesteem in which women are held both have profound consequences for the psychology of the Token" (p.53). The Token is not likely to characterize women in any particular way. If she does, she is highly unlikely to classify herself according to the traits of her gender as a whole. On the other hand, the Token's gender is likely to be salient to others, despite her denial of the effects of gender. She is assigned to primary-deviant status simply by virtue of being born female. Then, because she aspires to the privileges and attributes of the dominant class, she becomes doubly deviant: she is a woman and she is refusing the constraints of this ascribed status. The double deviant woman values in men the attributes associated with men and invidiously devalues the attributes associated with women. She prides herself in her ability to perform according to the valued qualities of the dominant group (e.g., rationality, coolness, critical thinking). The double deviant views herself primarily as an individual who has more in common with men than with women. It is her chosen path of upward mobility that determines that she have these perceptions; if her career is to advance, she must resemble and identify more with the dominant group than with other women who are not upwardly mobile. Laws (1975) emphasizes that not all double deviants become Tokens in a male-dominated system. The double deviant is recruited and moves through a series of stages toward the role of Token. Not all recruits, however, make it to the destination of Token. Laws (1975) speculates that there are "two aspects of differential socialization which move the double deviant out of the mass of primary deviants and put her on the track to an equivocal participation in the dominant group" (p. 54). The first aspect is a history of significant relationships with a number of sponsors. The second is a history of selectively associating with members of the dominant group (men) rather than with other women. A special talent demonstrated at a young age by the double deviant brings her to the attention of a sponsor. The child shares with this first sponsor, and with sponsors to follow, a special relationship in which she is treated as a special person and is exposed to opportunities which would normally not be accessible to her. 45 As a double deviant progresses toward her destination of Token, she is progressively trained to emulate the qualities of the dominant group. The further she progresses along this path, the more she will associate with men rather than with women, and the more she will imitate and identify with dominant class attributes. Her Sponsor is her major and sometimes only source of support: he is a lifeline, a vital source of validation, esteem, and acceptance. She is likely to be isolated from other women because of her choice to identify and associate with men and to devalue women. Token women may serve as "gate-keepers" to the dominants' turf, helping to screen less exceptional outsiders (i.e., the majority of other women). Hence, a Token woman is likely to draw the wrath of women who perceive her to be blocking their advancement. Becoming a Token is a method of survival in a male-dominated system. Laws (1975) suggests that double deviants who do not fully accept the role of Token represent a large number of women who are not promoted. A woman who wants to succeed and to be upwardly mobile in a male-dominated system is in a very difficult position: Having the resource of a female support group might well lessen the Token's psychological reliance upon the Sponsor and her psychological vulnerability to the male role set. However, the female reference group can do little to lessen the Token's material vulnerability to her colleagues. Rather, any affiliation with the Women's Movement is likely to reduce their tolerance for and evaluation of her. (Laws, 1975, p. 66) Kanter (1977) has also written about tokenism. She identified four group types in organizations according to the different proportions of kinds of people in the group. People may differ in terms of important master statuses such as gender, ethnicity, or race. Uniform groups are composed of only one type of person and, hence, have a ratio of 100:0. In skewed groups, there are many more of one type than the other (ratio around 85:15). The numerically dominant types exert enough control over the group and its culture to be called "dominants". The very small number of the other type in skewed groups are called "tokens". Tokens often become symbols or representatives of their type rather than individuals. As such, they are highly visible. It is very difficult for tokens to generate a strong enough alliance with each other to exert any control in the group. In tilted groups, the proportions are less extreme. With ratios of about 65:35, the numerically 46 dominant types are called a "majority" and the tokens move to the status of a "minority". Members of the minority group are present in large enough numbers to develop allies among themselves and to form coalitions which can affect the whole group and its culture. Individuals can be both a part of the minority subgroup and individuals differentiated from the group as a whole. Finally, balanced groups occur at ratios of 60:40 to 50:50. With more equal numbers of each type, majority and minority are potential subgroups that may or may not develop their own identity. Outcomes for both types of individuals will depend more on other personal and structural factors. 3. Advancement Through the Activities of Informal Networks: Blocks and Opportunities Hennig and Jardim (1977) contend that it is the informal structure of organizations that will either block or enhance efforts toward equal opportunity for women: In most organizations the informal system of relationships finds both its origins and present function in the male culture and in the male experience. Its forms, its rules of behavior, its style of communication and its mode of relationships grow directly out of the male developmental experience. This cannot be viewed as either good or bad. It is real. Men founded and developed the vast majority of the organizations we know. Men made them places where they could work and live and their settings were intended to be both comfortable and familiar. And if organizations in general are dominated by a male culture, then we need to note that at the management level, and particularly in its higher ranks, the informal system is truly a bastion of the male life-style, (p. 13) Men, then, are the "insiders" within this system: they understand and support each other, the informal structure, and its rules; they have a common experience base of playing, competing, and learning together, and they share common aspirations. Women, attempting to enter this system with a different base of experience and style of relating, are the "outsiders" (Forisha & Goldman, 1981; Hennig & Jardim, 1977). Hennig and Jardim (1977) contend that insiders, threatened by punishment if equal opportunity laws are not adhered to, can use the informal system to discreetly block gender integration. While legislation can control formal structure, "beliefs, attitudes and assumptions which people have about themselves and each other and their resulting willingness or unwillingness to accept each other are untouched by law" (Hennig & Jardim, 1977, p. 14). Abramson's (1979) 47 accounts of gender discrimination within professional employment, particularly in education and government in the United States, clearly illustrate this phenomenon. During the late 1970s, she interviewed about 150 people: women who had filed discrimination complaints, co-workers of complainants, employers, affirmative action officers, and so forth. Her book contains descriptions of case after case in which the career advancement of women was actively blocked by the actions of their (male) superiors. Information critical to career advancement was withheld from women, while the men around them received the necessary information; performance ratings were written in such a way as to defame the women's credibility; sexual harassment by male co-workers and superiors was allowed to go virtually unchecked; and women repeatedly had been given assignments well below their ability level and position. In many of the cases she described, women were systematically demoted because of these blocking actions, to the point that their careers were in ruins. In many cases, equal employment opportunity legislation was in place and rulings of investigating bodies were in favour of the women. However, the organizations for which the women worked frequently found ways to avoid the rulings and to continue to hold the women back. Investigations often were protracted to such an extent as to be virtually useless in helping the women maintain their positions or to advance in accordance with their qualifications. In summarizing the work of the American Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in regard to individual claims of discrimination, Abramson (1979) states: There are thousands of people who have filed charges of discrimination over the years who will get no remedy or who, at best, will gain a few thousand dollars or perhaps a belated promotion for their trouble. There is no guarantee in the system that, once they have settled, they will not immediately experience retaliation. There is no guarantee, and little likelihood, that having filed a complaint, settlement will place them in a nondiscriminatory situation. Some could probably turn around following settlement and instantly file a second, equally legitimate complaint of discrimination, (p. 63) The findings of a study initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunities Committee of the Public Service Commission (British Columbia, MISBD, 1979) (discussed in greater detail below) are consistent with Abramson's (1979) accounts of blocked career advancement of women by exclusion from male organizational networks. The strategies of exclusion described by women in the public 48 service included isolating the solitary woman from work contacts, cutting off information, reorganizing work flow to reduce the woman's control of her area of responsibility, and job reorganization to reduce its scope and the credibility of the woman occupying it. The authors note that these forms of exclusion are common strategies used to limit and contain the activities of any individual, male or female. However, these tactics were widespread among the accounts of professional women. Women consistently found themselves left without meaningful work or the means by which to develop their work after a formal reorganization or a routine change in work allocations. Hennig and Jardim (1977) suggest that laws alone will not ensure the advancement of women to higher levels of management. Success as a manager and access to upward mobility also require of women "understanding and skill at working in and with the informal system of relationships in which management jobs are embedded" (pp. 14-15). They go on to say that women's lack of career advancement as compared to men has much less to do with acquiring technical knowledge than it has to do with basic gender differences in perception which have prevented women from acquiring new and very different skills in regard to managing the informal system of relationships. These different perceptions, contend Hennig and Jardim (1977), have "left women trapped in [low-level] supervisory positions and too often branded as lacking in management potential" (p. 15). The work of Hennig and Jardim was expanded upon in 1978, when the Equal Opportunities Committee of the British Columbia Public Service. Commission (British Columbia, MISBD, 1979) initiated an investigation of how the structure and conduct of work in the B.C. Public Service contributed to the differential location of men and women in the organization's management. (In 1977, out of 431 management positions in the Public Service, only 18 were held by women.) The study examined the advancement of men and women, focused on advancement into managerial positions from lower-level positions within the organizational hierarchy, and investigated the ability of persons within these lower-level positions to gain the prerequisite knowledge and experience for merit-based advancement into management positions. 49 Two methods of data collection were employed. First, in-depth interviews were conducted with 54 men and 80 women public servants in selected job classifications and in management positions across British Columbia. In addition, interviews were conducted with 14 key senior officials in the capital city of Victoria. Finally, a self-ad ministered questionnaire was distributed to 1200 public servants in selected job classifications. The response rate to the questionnaire was 72%. The questionnaire explored respondents' career experiences and the organization of the work in their current positions. The findings indicated that advancement is not simply a matter of producing work. Rather, advancement arises from progressive changes in the relation of an individual's work to the organization, and involves relating to the organization in a manner that is wider than the individual's current job description. The individual who wishes to advance must find ways to direct increasingly different activities, to exercise more decision-making power, and to control an increasing number of resources in a manner consistent with the organization's goals. The skills of advancing one's work in this way are taught within the everyday working environment in the informal network of relationships embedded in the structure of the organization, not in formal training programs. Within this informal network of relationships, individuals learn a frame of reference that enables them to produce their work and to engage in activities in the managerial form sanctioned by the organization. The teaching process described above did not occur for the women in the B.C. study in the same manner that it did for men. Women at all organizational levels, from clerks to senior professionals, did not appear to participate in the organizational "team play" that was characteristic of the men. Men, in all job classifications, consistently referred to a sense of "we", describing their work as part of a team effort. They described their work in terms of the overall plan of their efforts, naming the divisional or branch objectives, other positions, and programs that formed the context of their work. The men rarely talked of their actual activities; rather, it was the direction in which their work would move them that was emphasized. 50 The responses of the women suggested that their work was carried out more in isolation. They readily described their daily activities, but rarely discussed where their work was heading or what it would do for them personally in terms of advancement. The authors of the B.C. Public Service report suggest that the differences between men and women noted above are the product of a social process and not a product of gender: This relation of work to personal advancement is learned in the ordinary course of work, through the activities of individuals and groups of individuals. It is also clear from the research that a great deal of training goes on in settings which have a more social character and in which women do not participate on the same terms as men. This might be, for instance, over a drink after work, or while travelling together on business. These are occasions on which being a woman is made relevant over and above being a colleague. Thus the occasions actually change as men accommodate women on this basis. This is often described as "women change the climate". Participation has a different character for women than for men. (British Columbia, MISBD, 1979, pp. 19-20) Accounts of explicit training about how to work in organizations were consistent across the stories of those who had advanced successfully at every level. The implications of this finding are that: People do not advance by themselves. They are advanced. This is largely the work of their superiors who have pushed and challenged them and taught them how to handle the organization. Teaching people what they need to know is an active enterprise. (British Columbia, MISBD, pp. 20-21) The authors conclude that if a great deal of this training takes place at an informal level, then "the inevitably social character of the conduct of the organization must be acknowledged and addressed as a fully proper area of organizational responsibility" (British Columbia, MISBD, 1979, p. 21). 4. Homosociality and Network Structure Several empirical investigations have documented the effects of homosociality on organizational network structure. The first of the studies reviewed here, while not conducted in an actual organization, does provide some useful evidence. 51 Larwood and Blackmore (1978) investigated the behaviour of 36 male and 24 female management students in soliciting volunteer leaders for a leadership task. They derived their predictions from the vertical dyad linkage model (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) which conceptualizes a group as a series of dyadic connections between the leader and individual group members. The interactions within each dyad depend on the type of role relationship that is established between leader and member. If an "ingroup" relationship is formed, the group leader and group member make decisions together and the member assumes leadership functions with the blessings and support of the leader. If, on the other hand, an "outgroup" relationship develops, the leader will simply instruct the member how to behave. A close relationship will not develop between the two, the outgroup member will not be made part of the decision-making process, and is less likely to be designated a leader. As predicted, respondents were more likely to request same-gender than cross-gender acquaintances to volunteer for leadership tasks. This effect was stronger for men than for women. Also, as predicted, persons previously known to the respondent were more likely to be requested to take part in remunerative or challenging tasks. These results suggest that, given the continuing state of high-level positions in organizations being occupied primarily by men, more men are going to be solicited and sponsored for advancement within the management ranks than are women. Larwood and Blackmore (1978) also compared a postexperimental question with their behavioural data. The stated preference for asking a male rather than a female to participate was positively correlated with the actual number of male acquaintances requested to participate and negatively correlated with the number of previously unknown females requested to participate. The measure was unrelated to the number of previously unknown males requested to participate or the number of female acquaintances requested to participate. These findings would suggest that stated preferences for one gender over another (as measured by the Cross-Gender Preference and Same-Gender Preference subscales) may be correlated with reports of relationship behaviour (number of same- and cross-gender relationships reported, mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions supplied by these relationships). 52 Lincoln and Miller (1979) studied the effects of five personal attributes - authority, education, gender, race, and branch assignment -- on the instrumental (work contact) and primary (friendship) ties in five professional organizations. They attempted to account for the dyadic connections of persons within these networks of instrumental and primary ties by examining the attributes that each pair of individuals had in common. All employees of the five organizations were given questionnaires requesting them to list five persons in the organization with whom they had worked closely in the preceding month and five persons in the organization whom they considered to be their close friends. The response rate was 90% in four of the organizations and 85% in the remaining organization. Lincoln and Miller (1979) chose as their unit of analysis the path distance or minimum number of links connecting each pair of individuals within each network. Using regression analysis, they examined the degree to which the attributes of authority, education, gender, race, and branch assignment predicted the proximity (path distance) of pairs of individuals. Their findings indicated that gender and race had a greater effect on friendship than on instrumental ties, with the tendency being to exclude women and nonwhites from the friendship networks. Overall, authority and education affected instrumental and friendship ties equally, serving to place persons highest in formal authority and education in central network positions. The attributes of authority, education, gender, and race tended to be status determinants: "White males with high education in formal positions of authority... [had] high probabilities of occupying the most central locations in the network space" (p. 193) and, hence, were most likely to receive both formal and informal communications about matters of import to the organization. Lincoln and Miller (1979) concluded by suggesting that friendship networks in organizations are not innocuous sets of social contact, rather: They are systems for making decisions, mobilizing resources, concealing or transmitting information, and performing other functions closely allied with work behavior and interaction [Since the attributes of gender and race] tend to exclude women and nonwhites from friendship networks, we might conclude that to the extent that friendship networks influence organizational process, reason gives way to prejudice, (pp. 196-197) 53 Rose (1985a) investigated the professional networks (departmental, university, and national) of assistant professors in psychology at 60 universities. The profession of psychology was chosen because, despite a continued higher proportion of men than women in the field, there were enough women (25%) from which to draw a sample. Forty-seven women and 43 men holding tenure-track positions completed questionnaires about the composition and functioning of their professional networks. Analysis of variance (Gender x Marital Status) was utilized to analyze network composition and effectiveness of network functions data. Rose (1985a) found fewer gender differences in junior faculty members' network composition and functioning than she had hypothesized. However, gender differences in network composition were found in three areas: women had more women colleagues than did men, women had a greater likelihood of having a higher-status woman associate than did men, and women had fewer associations with people in their previous institutions than did men. Rose noted that the women respondents in her study seemed to make up for their weaker ties to their graduate institutions by forming national networks equal in size to those of the men and by forming a small same-gender support network: "over 90% of the women had two or more same-sex associates, and close to two-thirds had a higher-status woman in their network" (Rose, 1985a, p. 544). Contrary to Rose's (1985a) hypotheses that women would have fewer higher-status associates and fewer collegial relationships with men, women listed approximately the same number of men in their network (M = 8.22) as did men (M = 8.26) and no gender differences were detected for "number of higher-ranking colleagues, number of higher-ranking male colleagues, or number of higher-ranking male colleague friends" (Rose, 1985a, p. 540). However, women did list as close friends significantly more higher-status women than men did. Marital status did not have a significant main effect. However, a significant Gender x Marital Status interaction effect was observed for mean proportion of colleagues listed as friends: "Single female faculty had the largest proportion of colleagues classified as close personal friends (M = .541), followed by married males, single males, and married females (M = .435, .402, and .378, 54 respectively)" (Rose, 1985a, p. 541). Rose's results suggest that single women faculty may integrate collegial and friendship relationships more than men and married women faculty do. Contrary to Rose's (1985a) hypotheses, no gender differences were found on items regarding the effectiveness of four (of five) network functions: friendship, socialization, career information, and access to current research information. However, gender differences were found on three measures assessing the effectiveness of respondents' networks in helping them to build a professional reputation (visibility function). Women rated their national network colleagues as significantly less effective than men's at increasing professional visibility. Women's colleagues were significantly less likely than men's to have recommended their work to others. Both women and men, though, did report receiving similar amounts of assistance from colleagues in terms of receiving career advice and being introduced to other colleagues. The final gender difference in the visibility function was that "compared to men, women rated their colleague-friends as having expended significantly less effort in helping them establish a network" (Rose, 1985a, p. 542). Rose noted that because women did not differ from men in terms of expectations for networks to promote visibility, the above-noted differences in perceived effectiveness of network functioning cannot be accounted for by women having higher expectations than men. No gender differences were found on measures of career success either, suggesting that lower performance by women was not a reason for differential treatment by colleagues. Rose's (1985a) findings contradict, in some ways, previous findings of women's exclusion from men's networks. It could be that both the men and women psychologists who responded to her questionnaire had become more aware of the importance of "networking" than people in previous studies had been. Also, given that the percentage of women in psychology is 25%, issues of isolation and discrimination related to being a token woman (Kanter, 1977) may have been reduced. It should be noted that the women in Rose's study did have more women in their networks than did men, indicating the establishment of a small same-gender support network by the majority of women. 55 Brass (1985) mapped the formal and informal networks of men and women in one organization and studied the relationship of these interaction patterns to promotions and perceptions of organizational influence. One hundred forty full-time, nonsupervisory employees (76 men, 64 women) of a newspaper publishing company completed a questionnaire about their organizational network involvement. To obtain information about the formal or workflow networks, respondents were asked to name all persons who supplied them with work assignments and to whom they distributed completed work. Information about the informal interaction networks was obtained by respondents listing persons to whom they talked often about work-related matters and whom they considered to be close friends. Persons named in this manner were counted as network members only if they reciprocated the original respondent's choice. Workflow networks were also verified by direct observation and by interviews. Many measures of workflow and interaction network centrality were examined: centrality within the entire organization, within the department in which the respondent worked, and within subunits of employees with the same immediate supervisor. In addition, centrality within men's and women's networks was assessed by using all men in the organization as the reference group for the men's interaction network centrality scores and all women in the organization as the reference group for the women's interaction network centrality scores. Finally, access to the dominant coalition -- a small group of the most influential top-level personnel -- was assessed. Following Blau and Alba (1982), Brass (1985) defined centrality as: the minimum distance between a focal person and all other persons in the pertinent reference group. The distance was measured by counting the number of links between a focal person and each other person; the resulting total was the centrality score, which was then divided by n-1, where n equalled the number of persons in the reference group, (p. 332) Given this definition, Brass suggests that a person with a high centrality score would have easy access to others in his or her reference group. The findings indicated that, in this organization comprised of approximately 40% women and 60% men, women were more central than men in both the workflow and interaction networks 56 when the whole organization was the reference group. However, "there appeared to be two informal, [gender-]segregated networks operating in the organization" (p. 339). When naming members of their informal interaction network, "men listed other men 75 percent of the time, and women listed other women 68 percent of the time" (p. 336). Women were not as central as men in the all-male interaction network and men were even less central in the women's interaction network. In addition, women were less central than men in informal interactions with the dominant coalition composed of four top-level men. Amount of perceived influence was assessed by peer and supervisor ratings. The overall pattern of results indicated that perceived influence was strongly related to integration into social networks. Influence was significantly related to integration into the dominant coalition; this relationship was particularly strong for women. For both women and men, centrality in cross-gender interaction networks was significantly related to supervisors' ratings of influence while centrality in same-gender networks was not. Thus, for both women and men, contacts with cross-gender persons were advantageous in terms of perceived influence. In terms of influence, it was particularly important for women to be part of integrated (mixed-gender) workgroups. Women in integrated workgroups scored significantly higher on several measures than did women in all-female workgroups. These measures were: centrality in subunit and departmental interaction networks, supervisors' ratings of influence, contacts with persons outside the immediate workgroup, centrality in men's interaction network, and access to the dominant coalition. When compared with their male counterparts in mixed-gender workgroups, these women were not significantly different from the men; the exceptions were their scores on three measures. These women scored significantly higher than the men on centrality in departmental, subunit, and women's interaction networks. While the overall pattern of Brass' (1985) results indicated gender segregation in the informal interaction networks, women in mixed-gender (integrated) workgroups were the exception to this pattern, as noted above. Men in the integrated workgroups were also more central to the women's interaction network than were men in all-male workgroups. Thus, proximity or the presence of 57 cross-gender persons in the immediate workgroup was an important factor in being integrated into cross-gender interaction networks. However, proximity alone could not explain differences in informal interaction network centrality. For example, "the men in these integrated workgroups were still significantly less central to the women's network than women who were also members of integrated workgroups" (p. 340). The investigator suggests that it may have been more important (in terms of influence and career advancement) for the women in mixed-gender workgroups to interact with men than it was for the men to interact with the women. Multiple regression analysis indicated that "for women, access to the dominant coalition and centrality in the men's interaction network were significantly related to both influence measures [supervisors' ratings and nonsupervisors' listings] when all other variables were controlled" (p. 338). In the three years following the initial data collection, seven men and three women from the original sample were promoted. Correlations between promotions and centrality for the entire sample indicated that promotions were significantly related to centrality within the men's, departmental, and dominant coalition informal interaction networks. In terms of attitudinal homosociality, it may have been that the women in these mixed-gender workgroups had a higher level of Cross-Gender Preference than did the men. Note that Cross-Gender Preference refers to a preference for cross-gender persons in situations involving cross-gender persons of higher status and power. A woman seeking to increase her own sphere of influence and to maximize her chances of promotion might seek relationships with those perceived as having the power to assist her in those pursuits. In the case of the women in Brass' (1985) study, it was access to the men's and dominant (male) coalition interaction networks that made the difference in terms of influence and promotions. The women in mixed-gender workgroups also may have maintained moderate to high levels of Same-Gender Preference (preference for same-gender persons in situations of equal status) and Valuing (valuing of same-gender relationships in and of themselves). Hence, they remained more central than men in the women's interaction networks, perhaps having different needs met in their relationships with other women. 58 In Brass' (1985) study, fewer women than men received promotions and women were perceived by supervisors and nonsupervisors as being less influential than men. Men seeking increased influence and promotions, then, might have indicated higher levels of Same-Gender Preference and Valuing and lower levels of Cross-Gender Preference. In general, cross-gender persons (women) perhaps were perceived as unnecessary or unhelpful in terms of increasing influence and career advancement. It should be noted, though, that in Brass' study, men who were more central to the women's interaction network were perceived as having more influence than were other men. Given that it was the men in integrated work groups who were more central to the women's interaction network and that the women in these integrated workgroups were perceived as equally influential to men, it may be the specific women to whom the men related that caused an increase in perceived influence. Brass (1985) contends that "it is impossible to ascertain whether men actively exclude women from their informal interactions, and vice versa, or whether members of each gender exclude themselves from ties with members of the other gender" (p. 340). The current investigator suggests that it is not entirely impossible to ascertain the above. Use of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale to measure aspects of homosocial attitudes (Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, Identification, and Jealousy) could contribute information about factors hypothesized to be related to inclusion in or exclusion from same- and cross-gender networks. Brass (1985) also suggested that "further research should deal with the specific content of [network] interactions" (p. 341). Measures of mentoring and friendship could be utilized to examine in detail the content of network interactions. The theory and research presented in this section have pointed clearly to the importance of supportive relationships in the workplace. The skills of relating successfully to the work of the organization and, hence, advancing one's career within the organization, are taught within the context of supportive relationships that are largely informal in nature. Persons lacking these relationships - for example, the women described by Abramson (1979) and the British Columbia, MISBD (1979) report -- had vastly different outcomes than did the women and men who had 59 supportive relationships. Those persons lacking supportive relationships experienced frustration, disappointment, and blocked advancement, while those persons who had supportive relationships successfully advanced to senior levels within the organization. The body of literature presented in the next section expands upon the concept of the importance of supportive relationships at work. The topic is mentoring. D. MENTORING The actions engaged in by the male bosses of the 25 successful women in Hennig and Jardim's (1977) study have more recently come to be known as mentoring. Kram (1985) describes the mentor relationship as: The prototype of a relationship that enhances career development.... [It is] a relationship between a young adult and an older, more experienced adult that helps the younger individual learn to navigate in the adult world and the world of work. A mentor supports, guides, and counsels the young adult as he or she accomplishes this important task. (p. 2) It should be noted that the mentoring relationship is the prototype of supportive work relationships. Understanding this relationship can provide valuable information about the effect of work relationships on career development (Kram, 1985). However, mentoring behaviours also may be received from persons other than a full-fledged mentor. For example, supportive work relationships with peers may be an important alternative to a relationship with a mentor (Kram, 1985; Kram & Isabella, 1985). More will be said about this later following the discussion of the mentoring relationship per se. Many writers and researchers (e.g., Alleman, 1985, 1986; Farren, Gray, & Kaye, 1984; Henderson, 1985; Kram, 1985; Missirian, 1980/1981; Reich, 1985,1986; Schroeder, 1988/1989; Zey, 1984) have described, in greater or lesser detail, the diverse roles, functions, and behaviours engaged in by mentors in support of their proteges. Kram (1985) developed a classification scheme of mentoring behaviours using information gathered during in-depth interviews about the nature of relationships between junior and senior managers in an organizational setting. Until the recent work 60 of Schroeder (1988/1989), Kram's was the most comprehensive listing and description of mentoring behaviours to date. Using Kram's (1985) typology as an organizing theoretical framework, and drawing from the work of others who had delineated mentoring functions, Schroeder (1988/1989) developed a measure of supportive mentoring behaviours which he used in a study of the effectiveness of mentoring behaviours. The following discussion of mentoring roles, functions, and behaviours draws heavily from the work of Kram (1985) and Schroeder (1988/1989) because they are the most comprehensive models presented to date. 1. Mentoring Functions Kram (1985) divided mentoring functions into two general classifications - career functions and psychosocial functions. Career functions are defined as "those aspects of the relationship that enhance learning the ropes and preparing for advancement in an organization" (Kram, 1985, p. 22). Psychosocial functions are defined as "those aspects of the relationship that enhance a sense of competence, clarity of identity, and effectiveness in a professional role" (Kram, 1985, p. 22). The career functions assist advancement within the organizational hierarchy, while the psychosocial functions affect the individual on a more personal level. Provision of career functions require that the senior person have enough experience and influence within the organization to provide the following individual functions: sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions, in contrast to career functions, require a closer interpersonal relationship based on mutual trust and increasing levels of intimacy. When the psychosocial functions of role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counselling, and friendship are present: Each individual experiences acceptance and confirmation through interaction with the other; mutual liking and respect support the young adult's views of self in the new work role, and simultaneously support the senior adult's views of self as someone with valuable wisdom and experience to share. (Kram, 1985, p. 23) According to Kram, a given relationship need not provide both career and psychosocial functions. Relationships that provide only career functions are less intimate and have a weaker interpersonal bond than do relationships that include psychosocial functions. Relationships that provide only 61 career functions are valued mainly for the instrumental needs that they meet, while relationships that include psychosocial functions are viewed as more unique and indispensable than most other work relationships. Each of the career and psychosocial functions is described individually below. Career Functions The career functions presented below are those adapted by Schroeder (1988/1989). They are very similar to the functions discussed by Kram (1985): Sponsoring, Exposure and Visibility, and Protection are the same, Kram's coaching is included under Schroeder's Teaching the Informal System, and Kram's challenging assignments has been subsumed under Schroeder's Teaching the Job. Sponsoring. Schroeder (1988/1989) defined Sponsoring as "communicating information to others, either verbally or nonverbally, concerning the potential or competence of an employee" (p. 5), thereby ensuring that employees will be considered for promotions and career opportunities. Exposure and Visibility. This function differs from Sponsoring in that with Exposure and Visibility, the protege is involved in the actions taken. That is, the senior person provides the employee with "tasks or opportunities that ensure that others will become personally acquainted with that employee" (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 6). It is then up to the employee to create his or her own impression by engaging in the task. Teaching the Job. The senior person provides the employee with "knowledge or experiences that help an employee learn technical and managerial skills" (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 7). 62 Teaching the Informal System. This function helps employees to gain important knowledge about how to work effectively within the organizational structure (Kram, 1985). As defined by Schroeder (1988/1989), it involves the "imparting of knowledge to an employee concerning informal aspects of the organization such as norms, mores, and politics" (p. 8). Protection. As defined by Schroeder (1988/1989), Protection has two aspects. First, a provider of this function may prevent "an employee from being exposed to tasks, positions, or situations in which the employee is unlikely to succeed" (p. 9). Second, the senior person may protect "an employee who has engaged in behaviours or actions that may be detrimental to the employee by taking the blame for or not telling others about these actions or behaviours" (p. 10). All of the above definitions of career functions were adopted for use in the current study. Psychosocial Functions Schroeder (1988/1989) chose a much narrower definition of psychosocial functions than was adopted in the current investigation. Because it was hypothesized that significant gender differences in supportive work relationships would be noted in the psychosocial domain, measurement of the psychosocial aspect of relationships was expanded in the present study. However, because Schroeder's (1988/1989) measure was the measure of mentoring behaviours used in the present study, the definitions of the psychosocial functions adopted by him are presented below. Following that, Kram's (1985) description of the psychosocial functions is outlined as a starting point for the presentation of the expanded view of psychosocial functions adopted in the current study. The psychosocial functions as defined and measured by Schroeder (1988/1989) are: Role Modeling. By acting as role models, senior persons provide employees with opportunities to learn by observation. 63 Encouragement. Schroeder (1988/1989) defined Encouragement as "providing encouragement or support that helps an employee feel competent, confident, or worthwhile" (p. 14). Personal Counselling. This function is defined as "discussing an employee's concerns involving self, career, or family (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 15). It should be noted that each of the psychosocial functions as defined by Schroeder involves behaviours that the senior person engages in on behalf of the employee. No mention is made of a reciprocal relationship. Kram's (1985) description of the psychosocial functions and the expanded definitions adopted in the present study both include considerable reciprocity in the relationship. Kram's (1985) definitions and descriptions of the psychosocial functions are as follows: Role Modeling. Kram (1985) states that role modeling is the psychosocial function which is reported most often. The senior person's values, attitudes, and behaviours provide a model for the junior person to imitate. The junior person's basic admiration and respect for the senior person makes the younger person open to learning by observation. It is the emotional attachment that is formed between the two that makes role modeling effective. The level of emotional attachment and identification may cause difficulties in the relationship, though, as both persons may feel "attachment, protection, ambivalence, and rebellion that parallel experiences in earlier [family] relationships" (Kram, 1985, p. 34). The process of identification is a complex one. The junior person may identify with and emulate some aspects of the senior person's style and reject other aspects. Ideally, and over time, the younger person will differentiate him or herself from the admired senior person by incorporating valued aspects of the person into his or her own self structure and by choosing to remain different in other aspects. 64 Acceptance and Confirmation. Kram (1985) contends that, through this function, both persons receive support and encouragement; both "derive a sense of self from the positive regard conveyed by the other Positive feedback on performance, mutual liking, and mutual respect help both individuals" (p. 35). The acceptance and confirmation provided by the relationship enables the junior person to take risks and try out new behaviours in his or her work world. This function enables the expression of differences and self-differentiation. Counselling. Through this function, the junior person is enabled to discuss personal concerns that might detract from effective work and a positive sense of self as a member of the organization. Personal concerns will vary depending on the career stage of the individual. For example, a person in the early stage of a career might want to discuss issues of competence and potential or how work commitments can be balanced with other aspects of life. Other concerns may surface in later years. Kram (1985) states that: What is shared in the relationship goes beyond the boundaries of most hierarchical relationships. The young adult derives comfort in discovering that he can share doubts and concerns without risking exposure to others in the organization. He can also address conflicts that would otherwise interfere with effectiveness and self-worth. The senior adult satisfies important needs by enabling a younger colleague to successfully manage personal dilemmas. And by sharing his own experiences and self-insights, he remembers previous points of decision during earlier career stages. The alliance formed through the counseling function counteracts the organizational force that can contribute to alienation and a decline in self-worth, (pp. 37-38) Friendship. According to Kram (1985), "this function is characterized by social interaction that results in mutual liking and understanding and enjoyable informal exchanges about work and outside work experiences" (p. 38). As this function emerges, increasing mutuality is experienced in the relationship. Kram suggests that the friendship function is limited in relationships between junior and senior members of an organization. Conflicts may arise if the roles of boss and friend are enacted simultaneously. Therefore, most of the people she interviewed chose to limit social interaction to the work setting while continuing to enjoy sharing personal experiences at work, eating lunch together, and so forth. 65 There is considerable overlap in the four psychosocial functions described by Kram (1985). The common theme among them is the presence of emotional bonding, a theme that is not present when the career functions are present alone. Schroeder's (1988/1989) instrument measures a part of each of the psychosocial functions of role modeling, acceptance and confirmation (he calls this Encouragement), and counselling (he calls this Personal Counselling). As stated previously, though, Schroeder's (1988/1989) measure does not tap into the reciprocal nature of emotional bonding that may occur when the psychosocial functions are present. Alleman's (1985) measure of mentoring behaviours (The Alleman Leadership Development Questionnaire) also contains scales that tap the psychosocial domain. She has called these scales General Counselling, Demonstrated Trust, Associate Socially, and Friendship. While many of the items in her scales address important aspects of the more personal side of the mentoring relationship, many of the items are too situation-specific to apply to a wide range of people. For example, two items in Associate Socially concern helping the other person with a political campaign and voting against the other person in an election. Another problem with the Leadership Development Questionnaire is its psychometric properties. Analyses reported in the questionnaire manual (Alleman, 1985) were based on data gathered from only 100 respondents and factor analysis had not been done to validate the structure and content of the scales. For the purpose of his study, Schroeder (1988/1989) chose not to include friendship as a mentoring function. He based this decision on the views of writers such as Klopf and Harrison (1981), Missirian (1980/1981), and Reich (1986) who suggest that friendship is a potential outcome rather than function of a mentor relationship. As discussed earlier, Kram (1985) noted the difficulty of friendships between superiors and subordinates and commented that the friendship function was limited in mentoring relationships. Her findings indicated that friendship was most likely to come into being in the redefinition phase of a four-phase mentoring relationship (initiation, cultivation, separation, redefinition). While Schroeder (1988/1989) did not include friendship as a mentoring function, he did measure (with a 5-item scale) the level of friendship present in the supportive relationships he studied. He found a significant positive correlation between the level of supportive 66 behaviours received from a person and the level of friendship reported with that person, indicating that friendship is, indeed, an aspect of supportive work relationships. Analysis of variance was used to compare the level of friendship received from supervisors, persons at a higher level than supervisors, and co-workers. The results indicated that "the level of friendship with co-workers was significantly higher than the level of friendship with supervisors or with people at hierarchical levels higher than supervisors" (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 140). This finding makes sense given that opportunities for a reciprocal relationship are likely to be more frequent among persons of equal rank. Friendship was present in the relationships, though. It was just more limited in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Schroeder's (1988/1989) findings in regard to the positive relationship between friendship and mentoring behaviours, and the findings of others such as Kram (1985) and Missirian (1980/1981) in regard to the presence, advantages, and disadvantages of deep emotional bonding in some mentoring relationships, suggests that the psychosocial dimension is worthy of further study. While two people involved in a mentoring relationship may choose to limit the amount of social interaction they have outside the immediate work setting, particularly during the time when the senior person has supervisory responsibilities with the junior person, the two are often emotionally bonded to each other. In her study of the mentoring process in the career development of women managers, Missirian (1980/1981) found that "during all three stages of the mentoring process, a richness of rapport, a caring, a trust develops between mentor and protege which can be described as a love relationship" (p. 115). As in any love relationship, the relationship is not free of conflict. The degree of emotional bonding present and the depth at which each affects the other means that both will, at times, be vulnerable to the other, particularly during periods of tension in the relationship. Missirian (1980/1981) suggests that "it is the ability of mentor and protege to confront one another on issues and yet maintain their respect and affection for one another that test the real strength of the relationship and the participants" (p. 115). Reich (1986) also has commented on the difficulties experienced in some mentoring relationships. While half of the men and women he studied listed few or no negative aspects of 67 mentoring relationships, others did cite major drawbacks. The main disadvantage listed by both women and men was being so closely identified with the mentor that others perceived the protege as the mentor's "person". Other drawbacks listed were being protected too much and being kept from better positions. Sixteen percent of the women and 22% of the men stated that the mentoring relationship had caused "a moderate amount of stress and that one or more of the ... [drawbacks listed above had] truly hurt the relationship" (Reich, 1986, p. 53). For example, the close identification and labelling discussed above was harmful in two ways. First, it limited opportunities for the protege to work with other people. Second, in some cases, attempts by the protege to achieve what one woman in Reich's (1986) study called "independence versus imitation" (p. 53) harmed both the mentoring relationship and the protege's career. Mentoring relationships that are rich in the psychosocial domain present both a risk and an invaluable opportunity for personal and professional growth for both the mentor and the protege (Missirian, 1980/1981). A greater understanding of the psychosocial dimension of mentoring relationships could help to minimize the risks and maximize the chances for successful outcomes of mentoring activities. Prior to the current study, a comprehensive and psychometrically strong measure of the psychosocial dimension of mentoring relationships had not been employed in a study of supportive work relationships. The career functions and psychosocial functions, while conceptually distinct, have not yet been found to be empirically distinct. As described in Chapter III (Method) of the current document, the results of principal component analyses of the eight subscales (individual mentoring functions) in Schroeder's (1988/1989) measure indicated one general factor. Relatively high interscale correlations supported the conclusion that the mentoring functions, as defined and operationalized by Schroeder, formed one general factor. The present investigator suggests that one reason why career and psychosocial functions have not yet been found to be empirically distinct is because the definition and subsequent measurement of the psychosocial functions has been too narrow. Ragins and McFarlin's (1989) mentor role instrument (MRI), published after the time of data collection for the current study, did provide a more thorough coverage of psychosocial provisions as defined by Kram (1985). The instrument measured the 68 following psychosocial provisions or roles (three items per role): friendship, role model, counselling, acceptance, social, and parent. However, the instrument was developed using a pool of only 69 proteges. The present study added to the body of research on mentoring and other supportive work relationships by employing the Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) (Woolsey et al., 1988b) to measure, in an expanded way, the psychosocial dimension of these relationships. The CSRS measures both conceptually and empirically distinct aspects of the psychosocial provisions discussed by Kram (1985). For the purpose of the present study, these dimensions were called relationship provisions. The relationship provisions measured by the version of the CSRS used in the present study are: Intimacy. When this provision is present, the two persons are able to share with each other their deepest, most private feelings; they exchange confidences and openly express their affection for one another. Intimacy is discussed by Kram (1985) under counselling and acceptance and confirmation. Similarity. The two persons are drawn together because they perceive many important similarities between them. Similarities may be noted, for example, in values, interests, and personality. Kram's (1985) description of the identification process which occurs in role modeling seems to be very close to the Similarity provision. Defiance of Convention. When this provision is present, the persons feel so comfortable with each other that they are able to defy conventional standards of appropriate behaviour when they are together (e.g., they are able to be "wild and crazy" when together). This dimension of close social relationships emerged from an interview study about close same-gender relationships (Woolsey & McBain, 1987b). In a subsequent factor-analytic study, Defiance of Convention was validated as a separate dimension (Woolsey et al., 1988b). To date, the investigator has not located 69 any other literature that discusses this dimension. Given that supervisors or senior persons in the organization may represent authority and conventional standards, it seems reasonable to assume that this dimension may be more present in close peer relationships than in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Emotional Support. The two persons provide each other with a sense of comfort, encouragement, and emotional support. They admire each other and learn things from each other. This dimension is most comparable to Kram's (1985) acceptance and confirmation function. Respect for Differences. When this provision is present, the two persons allow each other to be separate and different individuals -- to excel at different things, to grow and change, and to make their own decisions. Kram (1985) discusses this provision under two psychosocial functions --role modeling and acceptance and confirmation. Under role modeling, the expression of differences occurs when the junior person differentiates him or herself from the admired senior person. In doing so, the junior person incorporates into his or her concept of self those aspects of the senior person that are valued, and makes a decision to remain different in regard to the less desired aspects. Kram (1985) also suggests that it is the presence of the function of acceptance and confirmation that enables the expression of differences and self-differentiation. Lifetime Attachment. When this provision is present, the two persons state that they have developed a unique and special relationship with each other that has stood the test of time. Kram (1985) does not discuss this provision as a separate psychosocial function. Rather, she states that relationships that provide psychosocial functions in addition to career functions are "characterized by greater intimacy and strength of interpersonal bond and are viewed as more indispensable, more critical to development, and more unique than other relationships in the manager's life at work" (Kram, 1985, p. 24). 70 2. Gender Differences in Mentoring Relationships The results of some investigations have suggested that women managers may require and receive different types of mentoring than do men (Ragins, 1989). For example, several studies have found evidence of gender differences in mentoring in regard to the psychosocial domain. Collins' (1983) study of professional women and their mentors led her to conclude that women seem to need and appear to be given more support, encouragement, and instilling of confidence, while men seem to need and appear to receive training in risk-taking, leadership skills, and giving direction. Burke's (1984a) findings indicated that "there appeared to be unique features to the mentoring relationship (i.e., psychosocial functions) when females were involved either as mentors or proteges" (p. 368). Burke concluded that mentoring relationships involving women appeared to be comparable to those involving men; however, women's relationships included personal and emotional aspects as well. Reich (1986) also found that women's mentor-protege relationships were different from relationships involving men only, in that "the affective, or emotional, quality was more vital for women than for men" (Reich, 1986, p. 53). The present study was a more complete test of gender differences in the psychosocial aspect of mentoring relationships than were the three studies cited above. Reich (1986) compared the mentoring experiences of female and male executives. He found that 77% of the women and 90% of the men had had a mentor who had influenced their career development. Seventy-one percent of the women had had male mentors. Most of the women studied had had mentors by the age of 37 (compared to age 35 for the men) and had, at that time, begun to serve as mentors to others. Only 50% of the women were their proteges' supervisors, in contrast to 74% of the men. Reich's (1986) most significant finding was that 90% of the women who had become mentors were mentors to other women; fewer than 5% of the men had women proteges. These findings are consistent with Larwood and Blackmore's (1978) finding that both women and men prefer same-gender persons to cross-gender persons when selecting others for leadership tasks. Henderson's (1985) results indicate a similar pattern. He found that "women executives were three times more likely than a man to have a woman as a mentor" (p. 860). The investigator suggests that one reason for these findings may be the pattern of homosocial attitudes 71 held by the women and men studied. For example, the women in Reich's (1986) study may have had high levels of Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, and Identification and low levels of Jealousy. Reich (1986) did not report how many of the women served as mentors to men, so it is difficult to hypothesize what the women's Cross-Gender Preference scores may have been. The men in his study might have had low levels of Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Same-Gender Preference and Valuing. In his review paper on women and mentoring, Noe (1988) stated that "the number of mentoring relationships (mentorships) available to women does not appear to be keeping pace with the growing number of women needing mentors" (p. 65). Gender differences in relationship styles such as those noted by Collins (1983), Burke (1984a), and Reich (1986), and the preference of both men and women for relationships with same-gender persons may contribute to this deficit in mentoring relationships for women. Given that higher level positions in most organizations continue to be occupied mainly by men, women may lose out on valuable mentoring opportunities because of homosocial preferences and behaviours. 3. Outcomes of Mentoring Behaviours A growing body of literature and research attests to the importance to career development of establishing a relationship with a mentor (Collins & Scott, 1978; Fagan & Fagan, 1983; Gray & Gray, 1986; Hunt & Michael, 1983; Klopf & Harrison, 1981; Kram, 1985; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Noe, 1988; Orth, Wilkinson, & Benfari, 1987; Reich, 1985,1986; Roche, 1979; Zey, 1984). To date, however, "few rigorous quantitative studies of the ... outcomes of mentoring have appeared in the organizational behavior literature" (Noe, 1988, p. 66). The current study and the recent work of Schroeder (1988/1989) have addressed this deficit. Schroeder (1988/1989) investigated the effectiveness of mentoring behaviours by examining the relationship between employee outcomes and the level of mentoring behaviours received. He collected data for 11 individual career- and job-related outcome measures: Organizational Commitment, Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Job Satisfaction, Acceptance by Co-72 workers, Job Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development, Conceptual Skill Development, Satisfaction With Progression, Average Number of Promotions per Year, and Average Annual Salary Increase. The results of principal component analysis performed on the correlation matrix for the 11 individual outcome measures indicated three separate components. The first principal component was labelled the Job-Related Composite. It consisted of Organizational Commitment, Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Acceptance by Co-workers (all of these measures loaded highest, and above .40, on the Job-Related Composite). The second component, labelled the Skill Development Composite, had high loadings for the three skill development outcomes (Job, Interpersonal, and Conceptual Skill Development). The third component - the Promotional Composite - had high loadings for Satisfaction With Progression, Average Number of Promotions Per Year, and Average Annual Salary Increase. The first principal component for the measures associated with each composite was extracted and component scores were computed using the regression method. Scores for each of the composites were standardized to a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Internal consistencies (alpha) for the composites were .77 for the Job-Related Composite, .58 for the Skill Development Composite, and .57 for the Promotional Composite. Schroeder (1988/1989) found significant positive correlations between each of the outcome composites and the level of mentoring behaviours received. The highest correlations were between the Skill Development Composite and the level of supportive behaviours received (e.g., for the first source of supportive behaviours for the entire sample, r = .47, p < .001, n = 372). These findings indicate that supportive mentoring behaviours do have a positive relationship with career development. The current study employed many of the outcome measures used by Schroeder (1988/1989). The skill development outcomes (job, interpersonal, and conceptual skills) were chosen for use in this study because of the strong relationship between each of the individual scales and the Total Supportive Behaviour Score (TSBS) obtained on Schroeder's measure of supportive (mentoring) behaviours, and between the composite score (Skill Development Composite) and the 73 TSBS. Reich (1985,1986) also has noted the relationship between the receipt of mentoring behaviours and protege skill development. All of the outcomes comprising the Promotional Composite (Satisfaction With Progression, Average Number of Promotions per Year, Average Annual Salary Increase) also were adopted for use in this study. While the relationships between the Promotional Composite and mentoring behaviours were not as strong in Schroeder's (1988/1989) study as those between Skill Development and mentoring, they were still significant relationships (e.g., for the first source of supportive behaviours for the entire sample, r = .28, p < .001, n = 355). Other studies also have noted the relationship between inclusion in informal networks and/or receiving mentoring behaviours and promotions (Brass, 1985; British Columbia, MISBD, 1979; Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Reich, 1986). Only some of the outcomes which composed Schroeder's Job-Related Composite were included in the present study. Organizational Commitment was chosen because of the positive and significant correlation between it and mentoring behaviours (e.g., for the first source of mentoring behaviours, r = .39, p < .001, one-tailed). Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) contend that commitment "involves an active relationship with the organization such that individuals are willing to give something of themselves in order to contribute to the organization's well being" (p. 226). Individuals who are not actively involved in giving and/or receiving support to/from other organizational members are unlikely to feel a high degree of organizational commitment. Schroeder's (1988/1989) Acceptance by Co-workers also was used in the present study. Peer acceptance has been cited as a concern during the establishment phase of career development (Gould & Hawkins, 1978; Mount, 1984; Stumpf & Rabinowitz, 1981). Acceptance by Co-workers can be conceptualized as one measure of the degree to which an individual has been integrated into informal networks. Job Satisfaction also was employed as an outcome variable in the present study, although a different (shorter) measure than that employed by Schroeder (1988/1989) was used. Individuals are likely to feel more general satisfaction with their jobs if they have become part of a network of relationships in their place of employment. Finally, an outcome variable (Loneliness) not 74 considered by Schroeder (1988/1989) was employed. Research has shown that loneliness "reflects an individual's subjective perception of deficiencies in his or her network of social relationships. These deficiencies may be quantitative (e.g., not enough friends) or they may be qualitative (e.g., lacking intimacy with others)" (Russell, Cutrona, Rose, & Yurko, 1984, p. 1313). The present study examined the supportive behaviours received from social networks in the workplace. The degree of loneliness experienced by respondents was utilized as one measure of the adequacy of these networks in meeting individual relational needs. Schroeder's (1988/1989) conceptualization of the three-part structure of employee outcomes was used to group conceptually the 10 outcome variables used in the present study. Given that some variables were deleted from and added to Schroeder's list, the factor structure of the outcome variables investigated in this study needed to be confirmed by factor analysis. The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix C (Preliminary Analyses). 4. A Network of Supportive Relationships as an Alternative to a Single Mentor Mentoring behaviours need not be obtained only from someone who is perceived to be a mentor. For example, 35 of the 397 respondents in Schroeder's (1988/1989) study received relatively high levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours from persons they did not view as mentors according to two definitions of mentoring often cited in the mentoring literature. The mentoring relationship may be seen as a prototype of supportive work relationships (Kram, 1985). Supportive behaviours also may be received from sources other than mentors or superiors. In Schroeder's (1988/1989) study, supportive behaviours were received both from co-workers and from persons above the respondent in organizational rank. Kram (1985) contends that it is a misconception to believe that "finding a mentor is the key to individual growth and career advancement" (p. 199). She suggests that: Given the limitations of mentor relationships, the fact that they are relatively unavailable to most individuals in organizations, and their potential destructiveness in certain situations, it is risky to rely on one individual for all developmental functions. Relationships with peers can also offer developmental functions, and 75 individuals should develop a relationship constellation that consists of several relationships, each of which provides some career and/or psychosocial functions. (Kram, 1985, p. 200) Kram suggests that one's relationship constellation can include friends, family members, peers, bosses, and mentors. Other writers and researchers have expressed similar sentiments. The data of Harlan and Weiss (1980) revealed that: Very few men and women have mentoring relationships. What they described as mentoring was, in fact, multiple helping relationships that facilitated their movement upward having one particular person who is involved closely and intently with another person's career is unlikely to exist. However, a broader network of helping relationships does appear to occur for access to job opportunity information for both men and women, (pp. 194-195) Darling (1985), too, found that full-blown mentors were rare. A much more frequent occurrence was "a succession of less intense, less encompassing relationships that, in conjunction with mentoring events, add up to very formative mentoring experiences" (Darling, 1985, p. 41). Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978) suggest that mentors are at one end of a continuum of supportive/advisory relationships composed of peer pals, guides, sponsors, and mentors. All of these relationships facilitate job entry and career mobility. Missirian (1980/1981) conceptualized a similar continuum based on the degree of power and access to resources possessed by the support persons. She called these persons peers, coaches, sponsors, and mentors. The Woodlands Group (1980) discussed the importance of three of these roles (coach, sponsor, and mentor) in the development of managers. Phillips-Jones (1982) distinguished between primary mentors, who "significantly help you reach your major life goals [and leave] an indelible mark on your career" (p. 21), and secondary mentors who exert less influence on one's career but are helpful with certain specific needs. Secondary mentors include peer strategizers (co-workers, peers, friends, neighbours, lovers, and other acquaintances who assist in planning and implementing career goals), unsuspecting-hero role 76 models (heroes from public life, books, and so forth), and career favour-doers (persons who provide career favours, often on a one-time basis). Given that full-blown mentors are uncommon (Darling, 1985; Harlan & Weiss, 1980; Kram, 1985) and that mentoring functions which benefit the recipient can be received from various other individuals in the workplace, the present study examined the level of mentoring behaviours received from many different sources. The receipt of these behaviours was measured by Schroeder's (1988/1989) supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure. The behaviours measured by this scale are referred to as mentoring behaviours in this study. Respondents were requested to list persons in their organization who provided each of the eight mentoring functions outlined earlier in this section (see Mentoring Functions subsection). Then, because the level of mentoring behaviours was hypothesized to differ according to the gender of the recipient and the gender of the persons providing the supportive behaviours, respondents were requested to complete Schroeder's (1988/1989) scale twice: once with reference to the men listed, and once with reference to the women listed. Additional information about the psychosocial functions provided by these men and women was obtained by respondents completing the Close Social Relationships Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988b) in regard to those persons in their networks with whom they had more personal relationships. In this study the functions measured by the Close Social Relationships Scale are referred to as relationship provisions. E. THE STAGES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT Mentoring and friendship needs vary according to the life and career stage of the individual (Kram, 1985). Therefore, theory and research on career stages are reviewed briefly in this section. Hall's (1976) composite model of career stages, based on the work of Erikson (1963), Super (1957), Hall and Nougaim (1968) and others, divides the adult career into four stages according to age: establishment (up to age 30), advancement (ages 31 to 44), maintenance (ages 45 to 64), and decline (age 65 and beyond). This model has been supported by recent research on organizational 77 careers using an all-male sample of professional accountants (Adler & Aranya, 1984) and a sample of salespersons not identified according to gender (Slocum & Cron, 1985). Other researchers (Gould & Hawkins, 1978; Mount, 1984; Stumpf & Rabinowitz, 1981), drawing primarily from the work of Hall and Nougaim (1968), have defined career stage by the number of years in an occupation or by the length of tenure in an organization: establishment (less than 2 years tenure), advancement (2 to 10 years tenure), and maintenance (more than 10 years tenure). This definition of career stage is less likely to classify inaccurately people with irregular career patterns (e.g., women returning to the paid labour force after taking time out for family responsibilities), and was therefore the career stage model that was utilized in the present study. During the establishment phase, the individual is a newcomer to his or her occupation or organization. The major concern during this phase is to become established within the organization (Hall, 1976). Establishment requires the development of competence and gaining the acceptance of peers (Feldman, 1976; Schein, 1978). In the advancement stage, the key concerns are with increasing responsibility, upward mobility, and promotions (Hall & Nougaim, 1968). During the maintenance stage, the individual focuses on supporting the development of other organizational members and the organization as a whole (Hall & Nougaim, 1968). The individual's needs for mentoring relationships will be greatest, then, during the establishment and advancement stages. F. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES The hypotheses which emerged from the preceding review of the literature are presented in this section. Each of the five research questions that were originally stated in Chapter I (Introduction) are restated prior to the listing of the hypotheses which correspond to that particular question. 78 Research Question 1: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? The three homosocial attitudes common to women and men (Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing) and the two women-only homosocial attitudes (Identification and Jealousy) are referred to in the two hypotheses which correspond to Research Question 1. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. The same-gender networks of respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will be significantly larger than the same-gender networks of respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. Hypothesis 2. The cross-gender networks of respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will be significantly larger than the cross-gender networks of respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. These hypotheses arose from the theories and research related to homosocial attitudes which were discussed in the Homosocial Attitudes section of this chapter. Examples of how homosocial attitudes may have affected the results of other studies discussed in this chapter were interspersed throughout the Homosociality and Organizational Networks and Mentoring sections as well. The reader may refer to these sections for further explanation of the rationale for these hypotheses. 79 The basic idea behind Hypothesis 1 is that if people have favourable attitudes toward same-gender persons, they will seek relationships with them and, hence, list more same-gender persons in their networks. Hypothesis 2 predicts that people who have unfavourable attitudes toward their own gender, perhaps preferring cross-gender relationships instead, will seek more relationships with cross-gender persons and, hence, will list more cross-gender persons in their networks. Research Question 2: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? The same homosocial attitudes as those referred to in the hypotheses corresponding to Research Question 1 are referred to in the hypotheses corresponding to Research Question 2. The overall level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and the levels of six different relationship provisions (Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Emotional Support, Respect for Differences, and Lifetime Attachment) received from same- and cross-gender networks are addressed by the two hypotheses which correspond to Research Question 2. For the sake of simplicity, the relationship provisions are not listed separately in the hypotheses. Hypotheses Hypothesis 3. Respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will receive significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions from same-gender networks than will respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. 80 Hypothesis 4. Respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will receive significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions from cross-gender networks than will respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The rationale for these hypotheses was similar to that expressed for Hypotheses 1 and 2. However, Hypotheses 3 and 4 differ from the first two: Hypotheses 1 and 2 examined the relationship between homosocial attitudes and network size, while Hypotheses 3 and 4 addressed the relationship between homosocial attitudes and network activities (mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions). The gist of Hypothesis 3 is that persons with favourable attitudes toward their own gender are more likely to receive higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions from same-gender persons than are persons with unfavourable attitudes toward their own gender. Hypothesis 4 predicts that persons with unfavourable attitudes toward their own gender, perhaps preferring cross-gender relationships instead, are more likely to receive higher levels of mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions from cross-gender persons than from same-gender persons. Persons with the pattern of homosocial attitudes described in Hypothesis 4 might be expected to reject any offers by same-gender persons to provide mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions. Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? The same supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions as those referred to in the hypotheses listed under Research Question 2 are referred to in the hypotheses which correspond to Research Question 3. 81 Hypotheses Regarding Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Hypothesis 5. Same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than will cross-gender networks. Larwood and Blackmore's (1978) findings that both men and women were more likely to seek same-gender than cross-gender acquaintances for leadership tasks suggested that Hypothesis 5 would be supported. The findings of Henderson (1985), that "women executives were three times more likely than a man to have a woman as a mentor" (p. 860) and of Reich (1986), that 90% of the women in his study who had become mentors were mentors to other women, while fewer than 5% of the men studied had women proteges, also supported this hypothesis. The findings of Brass (1985), that gender-segregated informal networks appeared to exist in the organization he studied, also suggested that same-gender persons were more likely to provide higher levels of mentoring behaviours than were cross-gender persons. Hypothesis 6 (which follows) was formulated in partial opposition to Hypothesis 5. The rationale for the formulation of an oppositional hypothesis is as follows. In a male-dominated organization, women who desire career advancement may need to seek mentoring behaviours from men (who occupy positions of greater power within the hierarchy) rather than from other women (who may be present in small numbers in higher level positions) (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Noe, 1988). While respondents for the proposed study were drawn from work groups with as close to a balanced gender ratio (Kanter, 1977) as possible, the upper echelons of the majority of organizations are still occupied mainly by men. Women seeking significant career advancement still may choose primarily cross-gender relationships to assist in this pursuit, since other women in the work setting may not be in positions which would enable them to supply high levels of mentoring behaviours. Women seeking the acquisition of power in a male-dominated system may do this by forming relationships with (powerful) men; other women, because of their relative lack of power in 82 this environment, may be perceived as unhelpful in gaining increasing control over resources (Lipman-Blumen, 1976). Hence, Hypothesis 6: Hypothesis 6. In partial opposition to Hypothesis 5, it is predicted that women's cross-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than will women's same-gender networks. Finally, the theories of Lipman-Blumen (1976) and Tiger (1969) suggested Hypothesis 7: Hypothesis 7. Men's same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than will women's same-gender networks. Both Lipman-Blumen and Tiger state that the basis of male bonding is an attraction to power and status, that men bond around the acquisition of resources and exclude women from these bonds. Women traditionally have not had access to the same level of power and resources as have men. Hence, unlike men, women have not been as able to offer each other significant assistance in acquiring resources (remember that in a mentoring relationship, the protege learns how to navigate the organization and to gain control over an increasing number of resources). Hypothesis 7 was also supported by the findings of Lincoln and Miller (1979), that women and nonwhites were excluded from organizational networks that were a medium for the attainment of organizational goals. Brass' (1985) findings also lent support to Hypothesis 7. In his study, promotions and influence were significantly related to centrality in the men's informal network and to the informal network of the dominant coalition of men. The women in Brass' (1985) study were not as central to these networks as were the men. 83 Hypotheses Regarding Relationship Provisions Hypothesis 8. The same-gender networks of women and the cross-gender networks of men will provide significantly higher levels of Intimacy and Emotional Support than will the same-gender networks of men and the cross-gender networks of women. Hypothesis 8 was suggested by the theories of Pleck (1975) and Safilios-Rothschild (1981), and by the research findings of Arnold and Chartier (1986), Toews (1973), and Wetstein Kroft (1987/1988), all of which indicate that both women and men tend to have needs for intimacy and emotional closeness met primarily in relationships with women. The findings of Burke (1984a), Collins (1983), and Reich (1986) - that mentoring relationships involving women as mentor or protege are richer in the psychosocial dimension than those of men - also supported this hypothesis. Hypothesis 9. Men's same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences than will women's same-gender networks. Hypothesis 9 was suggested by the work of Eichenbaum and Orbach (1983a, 1983b, 1988) who contend that central to women's psychology is a difficulty establishing boundaries between the self and others. They state that women's tendency toward merged attachments can be traced to the dynamics of the mother-daughter relationship in which generational boundary crossing and its concomitant betrayal of the child's trust are common. Women learn to be the emotional caregivers in this key relationship with their mothers and, failing to establish a clear distinction between the mother and the self (as do male children), thereafter tend to merge with others in relationships. Put in very simple terms, "differentiation defies the very essence of feminine psychology" (Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1988, p. 50). 84 Hypothesis 10. The same-gender networks of both women and men will provide significantly higher levels of Similarity than will the cross-gender networks of women and men. Hypothesis 10 emerged from the work of Arnold and Chartier (1986), Larwood and Blackmore (1978), Lipman-Blumen (1976), and Wetstein Kroft (1987/1988). As "ingroup" members, same-gender persons are more likely to be perceived as being similar to the respondent in terms of values, interests, and activity preferences than are "outgroup" members (cross-gender persons). Hypothesis 11. Men's same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of Lifetime Attachment than will women's same-gender networks. Hypothesis 11 was based on Tiger's (1969) theory that men's same-gender relationships are stronger and more enduring than are women's same-gender relationships. While Tiger's theory is an older one and has been contradicted by research findings on relationships in non-work settings (Booth, 1972; Smith-Rosenberg, 1975; Woolsey & McBain, 1987b), there are no known empirical investigations of his theory based on work relationships. Given the nature of his theory (i.e., that males form lasting bonds with each other in hierarchical, power-based structures), it seemed important to test this theory in an organizational setting. The contradictory findings of Booth (1972), Smith-Rosenberg (1975), and Woolsey and McBain (1987b) suggested the formulation of an oppositional hypothesis to Hypothesis 11. Booth (1972) found that women were as likely as men to show stable patterns of participation in same-gender voluntary organizations as were men. Smith-Rosenberg (1975) documented emotionally rich and long-lasting bonds between women in the nineteenth century. The Woolsey and McBain (1987b) interviews with women and men about their same-gender relationships indicated that both women and men formed long-lasting same-gender social bonds. Hence, Hypothesis 12 was formulated as an oppositional hypothesis to Hypothesis 11: 85 Hypothesis 12. In opposition to Hypothesis 11, it is predicted that there will be no significant difference in the levels of Lifetime Attachment provided by women's and men's same-gender networks. Some respondents in Woolsey's (1984) interview study stated that same-gender relationships were longer-lasting than were cross-gender relationships because same-gender relationships were not complicated by the issue of sexuality. Other writers and researchers (e.g., Clawson & Kram, 1984; Kram, 1985; Reich, 1986), in discussing the difficulties of cross-gender mentoring, have noted that issues such as sexual attraction and unwanted sexual advances have caused relationship difficulties, some of which ended in a termination of the relationship. It seemed, then, that because same-gender relationships were less likely to be complicated with the issue of sexuality, that same-gender relationships in the workplace would have higher levels of Lifetime Attachment than would cross-gender relationships. Hence, Hypothesis 13 reads: Hypothesis 13. The same-gender networks of women and men will provide significantly higher levels of Lifetime Attachment than will the cross-gender networks of women and men. Research Question 4: How do homosocial attitudes in interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career-and job-related outcomes? An explanation of how the data were handled for this question is necessary prior to stating the hypotheses. A number of data reduction techniques were employed to streamline the analyses utilized in testing the two hypotheses formulated for this research question while allowing maximum use of the available data. These data reduction analyses are described in more detail in Appendix C (Preliminary Analyses). For now, a brief explanation is provided in order to clarify the meaning of Hypotheses 14 and 15. 86 First, in order to derive composite measures of homosocial attitudes, factor analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for the three (for men) and five (for women) homosocial attitudes scales. These analyses produced two composite factors which were conceptually comparable for women and men. Factor scores on these two composite factors -- Same-Gender Preference Composite and Cross-Gender Preference Composite - are the scores referred to in Hypotheses 14 and 15. Second, the scoring for the measure of supportive (mentoring) behaviours utilized in this study (Schroeder, 1988/1989) was modified somewhat for this research question. Respondents who listed no same-gender providers of supportive (mentoring) behaviours were given a score of zero for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks; respondents who listed no cross-gender providers of supportive behaviours received a score of zero for level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks. Scores were computed in the usual manner for respondents who had listed one or more same-gender mentors and had completed the mentoring measure with respect to the level of mentoring behaviours provided by these same-gender persons (i.e., the score for the level of same-gender mentoring received was the actual score received on the measure and was indicative of the overall level of mentoring received from same-gender persons). Scores also were computed in the usual manner for persons who had completed the mentoring measure with respect to one or more cross-gender providers of supportive (mentoring) behaviours. The career- and job-related outcomes referred to in Hypotheses 14 and 15 were introduced in the Mentoring section of this chapter. Scores on 10 separate measures, broadly defined as career- and job-related outcomes, were factor analyzed and a three-factor structure conceptually comparable to that found by Schroeder (1988/1989) was obtained. Factor scores on each of the three career- and job-related factors - named Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes in the present study -- are the dependent variables referred to in Hypotheses 14 and 15. 87 Hypotheses Hypothesis 14. Respondents with high scores on the Same-Gender Preference Composite who receive high levels of mentoring from same-gender networks will have significantly higher levels of Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes than respondents with high scores on the Same-Gender Preference Composite who receive low levels of mentoring from same-gender networks. Hypothesis 15. Respondents with high scores on the Cross-Gender Preference Composite who receive high levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks will have significantly higher levels of Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes than respondents with high scores on the Cross-Gender Preference Composite who receive low levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks. Question 4 and Hypotheses 14 and 15 address the issue of availability of appropriate same-or cross-gender persons in the respondents work setting. An individual who indicates a strong preference for associating with same-gender persons (i.e., receives a high score on the Same-Gender Preference Composite) but finds that like-minded same-gender persons are not available in his or her environment, may not fare as well as someone who does not particularly care to associate with same-gender persons. Take, for example, the case of a woman who receives a high score on the Same-Gender Preference Composite and who finds herself in a work setting with other women who score low on the Same-Gender Preference Composite. The other women in her environment who "invidiously disesteem ... the qualities associated with women" (Laws, 1975, p. 54) may cultivate relationships with men in the work setting and avoid relationships with women. The lone woman in this setting who seeks and prefers relationships with other women might experience a relational deficit (i.e, she might receive a low level of same-gender mentoring). This deficit may manifest itself as low levels of career- and job-related outcomes. The same principle might hold for 88 someone who strongly prefers cross-gender relationships (high score on the Cross-Gender Preference Composite) and who receives a low level of cross-gender mentoring. Research Question 5: How do the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career-and job-related outcomes? The usual method of scoring the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure (Schroeder, 1988/1989) was employed in the analyses for Research Question 5. Six relationship provisions were measured by the Close Social Relationships Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988b): Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Emotional Support, Respect for Differences, and Lifetime Attachment. The career- and job-related outcomes were the same as those described in the preceding section (Research Question 4). Hypotheses Hypothesis 16. For both women and men, there will be significant positive relationships between the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from any source (same- or cross-gender network) and Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes. An increasing number of writers and researchers attest to the link between having a mentor or receiving mentoring behaviours on the one hand and enhanced career and personal development on the other (Collins & Scott, 1978; Noe, 1988; Reich, 1985,1986; Schroeder, 1988/1989). Given that Schroeder (1988/1989) found significant positive relationships between the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received and each of three composite career- and job-related outcomes (promotional, skill development, and job-related), the current study was likely to find the same. While the individual outcome measures and the method of completing the supportive (mentoring) 89 behaviours measure in the present study varied somewhat from the measures and methods employed by Schroeder (1988/1989), the same general pattern of results was expected to hold. Hence, the formulation of Hypothesis 16. Finally, because relationship provisions, as measured by the Close Social Relationships Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988b), were expected to tap more deeply into the character of the emotional bond that can be present in supportive work relationships, it was expected that these provisions would be more strongly related to respondents' affective responses than to their advancement and skill development. Hence, Hypothesis 17 reads: Hypothesis 17. For both women and men, the level of relationship provisions received from any source (same- or cross-gender network) will be significantly more strongly related to Affective Outcomes than to Advancement and Skill Development Outcomes. This hypothesis is an important one for women in particular. Kanter (1977) has suggested that persons who perceive few opportunities for career advancement will direct their energy into developing satisfying personal relationships at work rather than focusing on career advancement. Research has shown that women's relationships are richer in the psychosocial domain than are men's (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Reich, 1986; Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985). A woman could be receiving high levels of relationship provisions.and, hence (if the predicted relationship holds true), score high on the Affective Outcomes factor. This same woman could conceivably be receiving low levels of mentoring behaviours and score low on the Advancement and Skill Development Outcomes factors. 90 CHAPTER III. METHOD The method of data collection selected for this study was a questionnaire that was completed by individual staff members in seven different organizations. The research procedures --recruitment of participating organizations, generation of the sample, and questionnaire distribution and return - are presented in the first section of this chapter. Following that, the measuring instruments, design, and statistical analysis are discussed. A. RESEARCH PROCEDURES 1. Recruitment of Participating Organizations Senior members (e.g., senior personnel department representatives) of 32 organizations in Western and Central Canada were contacted by telephone or by letter and a follow-up telephone call to invite the participation of each organization in the study. Those contact people indicating an interest in the study were provided a written summary of the nature of. the study, a list of the selection criteria for potential respondents, and sample questionnaires. Each representative was informed that written feedback summarizing the results of the study would be provided to the organization and to participating staff members who requested it. The investigator discussed the selection criteria and methods (outlined in the next subsection) to be used in generating the sample of potential respondents with a senior member of each interested organization (usually a senior personnel department representative) to be sure that an appropriate sample could be generated from the organization. A total of seven organizations, all located in large Western Canadian centres, participated in the study: two were from the public sector (both post-secondary education), four were from the private sector (computer systems design and consultation, equipment sales and service, professional accounting, and telecommunications broadcasting), and one was a Crown corporation (utilities). 91 2. Generation of the Sample Four criteria were applied in selecting potential respondents in each organization. First, respondents were to be employed in managerial, supervisory, professional, or technical positions, as this was the population of interest for this study. Second, because this was a study of a variable (homosociality) hypothesized to be related to organizational socialization and career advancement, it was important to sample from a pool of employees who were in relatively early stages of career development or in the early years of organizational tenure. Therefore, respondents were limited to those with 15 years or less of organizational tenure. Third, because "physical proximity acts as a necessary precondition for the formation of relationships, that is, people have to have contact with each other to form relationships" (Woolsey & McBain, 1987b, p. 62), respondents had to be employed in gender-integrated work groups (approximately 50:50 to 75:25 gender ratio), thereby ensuring that they had the opportunity to form relationships with people of both genders. Finally, because relatively equal and large numbers of questionnaires completed by women and men (approximately 250 each) were required for the proposed data analyses, and because the response rate for men in relationship research tends to be lower than that for women (Woolsey et al., 1988a, 1988b), the number of male potential respondents was to be equal to or somewhat greater than, the number of female potential respondents. In one post-secondary education institution, the pool from which the sample was drawn consisted of (a) all full-time managerial, supervisory, and professional staff members classified within one large employment group, and (b) all full-time technical staff members above a certain job level. The sample consisted of all 1,112 people (545 women, 567 men) in this pool who met the tenure and gender-integrated work group criteria. In the other post-secondary education institution, the sample was drawn from a pool of managerial, supervisory, and professional staff members classified within one large employment group. A list of 232 people (122 women, 110 men) who met the tenure and gender-integrated work group requirements was generated; all 232 people were included in the sample. 92 The sample from the computer systems design and consultation firm was obtained by selecting professional and technical staff members who met the tenure and gender-integration requirements. This group included 8 women and 9 men, 17 people in total. All managerial, supervisory, and professional staff members who met the tenure and gender-integrated work group requirements were included in the sample from the equipment sales and service company. The 10 people in this sample included 6 women and 4 men. The sample from the professional accounting firm consisted of 20 managers (10 women, 10 men) who met the tenure and gender-integrated work group requirements. The sample from the organization in the telecommunications broadcasting industry was derived by listing all supervisors and managers who met the tenure and gender-integrated work group criteria. The list of 38 people contained the names of 21 women and 17 men. The sample from the corporation in the utilities industry was generated by selecting all managers, supervisors, and professional staff who met the tenure and gender-integration requirements. The names of 27 people (13 women, 14 men) were provided to the investigator. In summary, the total sample consisted of 1,456 staff members (725 women, 731 men) employed in one of seven organizations located in large Western Canadian centres. 3. Questionnaire Distribution and Return The questionnaire was divided into two parts, each with a separate administration, in order to reduce each respondent's time commitment for each sitting to approximately 30 minutes. A small pilot study was undertaken prior to the main study, primarily to test clarity of instructions and length of time required to complete each part of the questionnaire. Each of 12 respondents (5 women, 7 men) employed in administrative, professional, or technical positions in different organizations in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia completed one version of progressively different formats of the two-part questionnaire. Verbal feedback received from these pilot respondents and information gained by visual inspection of their completed questionnaires were used to revise the questionnaire prior to distributing it in the first organization. 93 Each of the 1,456 staff members in the sample was mailed an envelope containing a cover letter from a senior personnel representative, a cover letter from the author, the first part of the questionnaire, and a reply envelope in which to return the completed questionnaire directly to the author, and, in the case of six organizations in which data were collected, her thesis advisor. In the case of one organization in which data were collected (post-secondary education), reply cards for requesting feedback also were included. The cover letter from each personnel representative indicated to the staff members that the organization's management endorsed the study. The cover letter from the author summarized the study, assured anonymity and confidentiality, and indicated that feedback about the results of the study would be provided to interested participants upon request. Within one week of distributing Part One of the questionnaire, an envelope containing Part Two and a return envelope was mailed by the investigator to each of the potential respondents to whom Part One had been mailed. Considerable difficulty was experienced at this stage in one organization in which data were collected (post-secondary education). Within days of the questionnaires being distributed, the author was contacted by staff members who wished to offer feedback on behalf of individuals or groups of concerned colleagues who had received questionnaires. Those persons giving the feedback described a generalized suspicion of the larger management structure in their organization; participation in the current study was perceived by some people as a threat to an already shaky sense of job security. The feedback offered by concerned staff members indicated that three aspects of the questionnaire package had aggravated this suspicious response. First, because the questionnaire had been accompanied by a cover letter from a senior member of the organization, the perception of some people was that the author had been hired by the organization's management to conduct the study (rather than the survey being undertaken independently for her doctoral dissertation research). Second, in two sections of the questionnaire, respondents were requested to list the initials, gender, age, and relationship (to the respondent) of persons in their organization who 94 provided them with certain mentoring behaviours or relationship provisions. Some people were concerned that this was too much identifying information to provide; they did not like the feeling that they were naming colleagues and reporting on them. Third, for questionnaire matching purposes, each set of questionnaires (Part One and Part Two) had been stamped with a code number just prior to inserting the parts into separate envelopes, both of which had been pre-labelled with one potential respondent's name and address. As Parts One and Two of the questionnaire were to be completed and returned separately, these code numbers were to be used to match the two parts of the questionnaire upon their return to the author. While no records had been kept to link particular code numbers to individuals, some people indicated a fear that their responses would not remain anonymous. The feedback noted above and a much lower than expected response rate prompted the early distribution of a follow-up letter from the author to all potential respondents only two days after mailing Part Two of the questionnaire; a second follow-up letter from the investigator's Supervisory Committee was mailed 12 days later. Both letters thanked staff members for their participation and reiterated (a) that the study was being undertaken as doctoral dissertation research, and (b) that all responses were anonymous and confidential. For the benefit of those people who were particularly concerned about the code numbers stamped on the questionnaires, instructions were given for returning unnumbered questionnaires. In addition, the second follow-up letter provided instructions for using code letters rather than initials to identify co-workers who were providing the behaviours of interest. Little improvement in response rate was noted after the follow-up letters. While it was believed that the low response rate in this organization was due in large part to the suspicious organizational climate, some modifications aimed at reducing concerns about anonymity were made to the questionnaire before distributing it in the other six organizations. First, potential respondents were requested to provide their own questionnaire matching codes. Each respondent was asked to make up and keep a record of a six-character code, to print the code on Part One of the questionnaire prior to returning it, and to place the same code on Part Two. Second, for the benefit of people who preferred not to identify co-workers by their initials, optional 95 instructions for using code letters were provided. Other minor changes made to the questionnaire prior to distributing it in the final six organizations included highlighting important instructions that were missed by some people in the first organization and deleting one demographic item regarding current interest in developing a new romantic relationship that may have contributed to a lowering of response rate. This item was of minor importance in the proposed analyses and so it was deleted. Data collection in the final six organizations proceeded uneventfully. Follow-up letters were distributed to all potential respondents two weeks after Part Two of the questionnaire was mailed. These letters thanked participants who had already returned both parts of the questionnaire and requested those who had not to do so soon. Questionnaires were distributed in the seven organizations over a seven-month period and returned over an eight-and-one-half-month period. The return rate is presented in Chapter IV (Results). B. MEASURES The measuring instruments used in this study are described in this section. The instructions and items for each of the measures are located in Appendix A. The measures appear in Appendix A in the order in which they appeared in the actual questionnaire. For ease of administration, the questionnaires were colour-coded according to the gender of the potential respondent (blue for women, grey for men). The only difference between the women's and the men's questionnaires was that the women's form contained the Bonds Between Women Scale in Part Two and the men's form contained the Bonds Between Men Scale. To guard against response set bias, the response format was counterbalanced for those items requiring separate responses for same- and cross-gender networks. For example, in half of the questionnaires distributed to women, respondents were requested to answer the supportive behaviour items and the Close Social Relationships Scale items first while considering their relationships with women in the organization, and second while considering their relationships with men in the organization. In the other half of questionnaires distributed to women, respondents were 96 requested to answer first for relationships with men and second for relationships with women. The same procedure was employed with questionnaires distributed to men. A description of each of the measures contained in the questionnaire follows. 1. The Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) Development of the Scale. The Close Social Relationships Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988b) was designed to measure homosociality at the level of actual relationships. That is, scale items were designed to measure respondents' thoughts, feelings, and behaviours in regard to specific, lived relationships. Unless noted otherwise, the descriptions of CSRS scale development summarized in this section have been extracted from the, as yet, unpublished data analyses of Woolsey et al. (1988b). Scale construction began with interviews of 35 women and 35 men on the topic of their same-gender social relationships with friends, relatives, co-workers, and neighbours. The sample for this interview study was representative of a university-educated population of adult women and men: 69% of the women and 80% of the men were university students; all but one were between the ages of 18 and 35. The sample was varied in terms of marital status and the presence of children (parental status); as well, over 28% of the sample was of a self-designated ethnic origin other than Canadian (Woolsey & McBain, 1987b). Items for the original version of the CSRS were constructed primarily on the basis of the friendship data. Critical incidents reported to have strengthened same-gender friendship bonds were organized into themes or categories; the model of friendship bonds that emerged from this categorization showed "a progression in friendship from bonds of a casual nature to bonds of a deeper, more enduring nature" (Woolsey & McBain, 1987b, p. 63). Scale items were written to reflect both the prototypical incidents and the general themes described in this model. The original 187-item version of the CSRS was completed by 1,226 respondents. Of these, 961 (645 women, 316 men) were university or community college students; the remainder (163 women, 102 men) were recruited from non-credit community adult education classes. The student 97 and community samples differed in terms of age and marital status, with the student samples tending to be younger (the mean ages were 27.40 years for women and 25.20 years for men) and predominantly single (55.3% of the women and 64.2% of the men were single) and the community samples tending to be older (the mean ages were 37.57 years for women and 40.41 years for men) and predominantly married (63.8% of the women and 74.5% of the men were married). In preparation for completing the scale, respondents were requested to name up to 10 same-gender persons with whom they had their closest social relationships. They were then asked to indicate how strongly they believed each item to be true or not true of the relationships they had listed. The 6-point scale for responses ranged from 1 (definitely not true) to 6 (definitely true). Principal component analyses were performed separately on the data gathered from each of the four different groups: student women (n = 645), student men (n = 316), community women (n = 163), and community men (n = 102). The data from both community samples were eventually discarded because of small sample sizes and poor matching of factor structures and item factor loadings with the stronger results for the two student samples. The unclear results for the community samples and the subsequent discarding of these data were unfortunate because these community samples were, in some respects (such as age, marital status, and occupational groupings), more similar to the target group for the current study than were the student samples. It would have been better for the purpose of the current study, to have used a measure of relationships developed from data gathered from respondents at a more similar point in the lifecycle to the potential respondents in the current study. However, such a measure was not available. The results of an oblique 10-factor solution (using principal component analysis with the student women and student men data) provided the most conceptually meaningful solution with the greatest number of item matches across the student women and student men samples. The item content of 8 of the 10 factors reflected the majority of the general themes or categories outlined in the model of friendship bonds developed from the critical incident study described earlier (Woolsey & McBain, 1987b). The 8 interpretable factors were named: Casual Socializing, Similarity, Defiance 98 of Convention, Emotional Support, Respect for Differences, Practical Support, Intimacy, and Lifetime Attachment. The 2 remaining factors were not interpretable. Eighty-six items were retained for further analyses, based on factorial simplicity of matched items and conceptual meaning of the factors. In most cases, an item was retained only if: (a) it had a factor loading of .30 or more for both the student women and student men samples, (b) it was factorially simple (i.e., did not have a factor loading of .30 or greater on more than one factor), and (c) it had a factor loading of .30 or more on one of the eight conceptually meaningful factors of the 10-factor solution. The retained items were re-factored twice, using the original data from the student samples. Eight-factor unweighted least squares factor analyses, employing Harris-Kaiser oblique transformations, were performed on the correlation matrices for 86, then 59, retained items. Once again, items were retained or discarded according to the decision rules outlined above. Fifty-four items representing eight factors were retained after the final round of factor analyses with 59 items. All of the retained 54 items were factorially simple, remained on their original factors, and, with only two exceptions with factor loadings of .29, had pattern coefficients greater than or equal to .30 for both the student men and student women samples. Only six of the eight factors were used in the current study. Practical Support and Casual Socializing were excluded because they were less important (conceptually) to the study. Deletion of the items on these subscales brought the number of items to be used in the current study down to 47. Interscale correlations for the 47-item version of the CSRS used in the current study were acceptably low, ranging from .10 to .60 for the student women and student men samples. The addition of three new positively worded items to the Intimacy subscale brought the total number of CSRS items used in the current study up to 50. These three new positively scored items were added because all of the other Intimacy items were reverse scored. The 50 CSRS items utilized in the current study are listed in Part Two of the questionnaire under the Close Social Relationships Scale (see Appendix A). The numbers of the items corresponding to each of the six subscales are (new items in bold print and reverse-scored items underlined): Similarity (1, 7,13, 19, 25, 31, 36, 40, 99 45, 48); Defiance of Convention (2, 8, 14, 20, 26, 32, 37, 42, 46, 49); Intimacy (3, 9,15, 21, 27,30, 33, 38,41, 43, 47,50); Emotional Support (4,10,16, 22, 28, 34, 39, 44); Respect for Differences (5,11, 17, 23, 35); and Lifetime Attachment (6, 12, 18, 24, 29). Other changes made to the CSRS to adapt it for use in the current study include the following. First, the method of generating the initials of network members in preparation for completing the scale was altered to include elements of procedures used for similar purposes by Fischer (1982) and Schroeder (1988/1989). Respondents in the current study were requested to list the initials of up to five persons (gender not specified) who provided each of the following six relational provisions, listed respectively: Similarity, Emotional Support, Respect for Differences, Lifetime Attachment, Intimacy, and Defiance of Convention. The six questions (items 1-6) used to generate these initials were placed in the introductory section of the Close Social Relationships Scale in Part Two of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). Second, following this listing of initials, respondents were asked to transfer into a Network Table the initials of up to 10 people listed most frequently in response to the six relationship provisions questions. The Network Table included several questions designed to elicit descriptive information about each of the relationships listed in the table. Finally, respondents were instructed to respond to each of the 50 CSRS items while considering (a) the same-gender people listed in the CSRS Network Table who also had been identified as providers of supportive (mentoring) functions in the first part of the questionnaire, and (b) the cross-gender people identified in the CSRS Network Table who also had been cited as providers of supportive (mentoring) functions in Part One. The CSRS Network Table and instructions for completing the 50 CSRS items while considering each of the networks are located under the title Close Social Relationships Scale in Part Two of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). Scoring. Each item on the CSRS receives a score from 1 (definitely not true) to 6 (definitely true). A separate score is derived for each of the six subscales by reversing the value of negatively worded items and then summing the responses to each item contained in the subscale. 100 Reliability. Internal consistency coefficients (alpha) for each of the six subscales in the 47-item CSRS used in the current study were computed from the student women and men data. Most of the coefficients were above .80. The lowest were .58 (for student men) and .64 (for student women) on Respect for Differences. Given that this was only a 5-item subscale, this level of internal consistency was judged to be adequate. Test-retest reliability has not been investigated. Validity. Convergent and discriminant validity of the CSRS had not been assessed prior to the time of data collection for the present study. Construct validity was assessed, in part, by the repeated factor analyses (Woolsey et al., 1988b) described above, in which the content and meaning of the eight factors remained consistent. Factor analyses performed on the new data collected for the current study continued this process (these results are presented in Appendix C [Preliminary Analyses]). The content of the eight factors found by Woolsey et al. (1988b) also was compared with the content of other measures of friendship and intimacy available prior to the time of data collection for the current study. The eight CSRS factors were found to contain almost all of the content of the following nine measures taken in combination: Relationship Rating Form (Davis & Todd, 1985), Acquaintance Description Form (Wright, 1985), Friendship Expectancy Inventory (La, Gaipa, 1977), Intimacy Categories Scale (Arnold & Chartier, 1986), Solidarity Scale (Arnold & Chartier, 1986), Emotional Intimacy Scale (Williams, 1985), Miller Social Intimacy Scale (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982), Love-Scale and Liking-Scale (Rubin, 1970), and the Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987; Russell & Cutrona, 1984). In addition, the CSRS had a factor (Defiance of Convention) that was not found in any other measure. Among the most comprehensive of the other measures - the Relationship Rating Form (Davis & Todd, 1985), the Acquaintance Description Form (Wright, 1985), the Friendship Expectancy Inventory (FEI) (La Gaipa, 1977), the Intimacy Categories and Solidarity Scales (Arnold & Chartier, 1986), and the Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987; Russell & Cutrona, 1984) - scale development had not proceeded to the point of establishing the same simple factor structure for both genders and for both same- and cross-gender relationships. As a 101 major purpose of the current study was to compare women's and men's same- and cross-gender relationships, a comprehensive measure with an established simple factor structure valid for use with all of these relationships was sought. The CSRS had the advantage of the repeated factor analyses described earlier in which the same simple factor structure remained consistent for both student women and student men. One drawback of using the CSRS to study cross-gender relationships was that the CSRS was developed from interview data about same-gender relationships; in addition, respondents to the original 187-item version of the CSRS were requested to complete the scale with their closest same-gender relationships in mind. However, it should be noted that La Gaipa (1977) wrote the items for the FEI from interview data about same-gender relationships too (and the FEI subscales match the CSRS factors very closely). The FEI subsequently has been used to investigate both same- and cross-gender relationships. In addition, the majority of the other nine scales reviewed have been used to investigate both same- and cross-gender relationships. For example, the Intimacy Categories Scale and Solidarity Scale (Arnold & Chattier, 1986) were completed twice by 143 single undergraduate men: once for their closest same-gender relationship and once for their closest cross-gender relationship. Common factor analysis with varimax rotation resulted in similar factor structures for both same- and cross-gender relationships. The data analysis for the current study included performing separate factor analyses on the CSRS data gathered from women and men in regard to their same- and cross-gender work relationships. The results of these analyses, reported in Appendix C (Preliminary Analyses), supported the validity of using the CSRS to measure aspects of women's and men's same- and cross-gender relationships. 2. The Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Bonds) Development of the Scale. The Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988a) was designed to measure homosocial attitudes, that is, attitudes toward same-gender persons in general (i.e., toward one's own gender as a group). The scale has two 102 forms. The Bonds Between Women Scale was designed to be completed by women, and the Bonds Between Men Scale was designed to be completed by men. The two forms are different in two respects. First, the men's form has three factors or subscales while the women's form has five. Three factors -- Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing ~ are common to women and men. Two factors ~ Identification and Jealousy - are women-only factors. The separate factors for women were the result of repeated conceptual and factor analyses, which are described later in this subsection. The second difference between the women's and men's forms is that the words "women" and "men" have been interchanged as appropriate in all of the items common to women and men. For example, in the Bonds Between Women Scale, an item reads, "My relationships with women are very important to me," while in the Bonds Between Men Scale, the same item is worded, "My relationships with men are very important to me." The 192 items on the original questionnaire were drawn from several sources. First, items were written on the basis of interview data obtained from 35 men and 35 women on the topic of their same-gender social relationships (Woolsey & McBain, 1987b) and categories derived from the literature (Woolsey, 1987a). Second, relevant items were selected from the Affiliation Questionnaire (Toews, 1973) and rewritten to fit the format of the Bonds Scale. The resulting 192-item questionnaire was completed by 1,379 men and women from student (university and community college) and community (non-credit community adult education classes) samples. In terms of age, marital status, and occupational groupings, the characteristics of the four samples - student women (n = 708), student men (n = 363), community women (n = 188), and community men (n = 120) -were similar to those described for the Close Social Relationships Scale. As with the Close Social Relationships Scale, unless noted otherwise, the Bonds scale development described in this section has been extracted from the, as yet, unpublished data analyses of Woolsey et al. (1988a). Each female respondent was requested to answer each item on the 192-item Bonds Scale according to how strongly she believed it to be true or not true of her general attitudes and feelings about women. Male respondents were requested to respond according to their general attitudes 103 and feelings about men. The 6-point scale for responses ranged from 1 (definitely not true) to 6 (definitely true). At this point, the Items on the men's and women's scales were identical except for the appropriate interchanging of the words "women" and "men" as described above. Principal component analyses were performed separately on the data gathered from each of the four different groups: student women, student men, community women, and community men. Five factors emerged from these initial analyses: (a) Cross-Gender Preference, (b) Same-Gender Preference, (c) Valuing, (d) Solidarity, and (e) Identification. At this time, Identification appeared to be a viable factor only for women (both student and community samples) and Solidarity appeared to have some items that were common to women and men in all four samples, some items that worked only for women (student and community), and some that worked only for men (student and community). At this point, items were retained or dropped according to the following decision rules: (a) the Identification items were retained only for women (this decision was confirmed by conceptual analysis); (b) each of the items was retained only if it had a factor loading of .30 or more on one of the four factors (for men) or five factors (for women); (c) to be retained, an item had to be factorially simple (i.e., it had a loading of .30 or more on one factor only). Several rounds of unweighted least squares factor analysis (four factors for men, five for women), using Harris-Kaiser oblique transformation, were performed on the retained items from the original data sets. Each round of factor analysis was followed by the retention or deletion of items according to the above decision rules. Eventually, the Solidarity items that appeared to work only for one gender were dropped from the analyses for the other gender (again, this decision was confirmed by conceptual analysis). The final round of Harris-Kaiser transformed unweighted least squares factor analysis was performed with 60 items and four factors for men, and 65 items and five factors for women. The same four factors (for men) and five factors (for women) remained in this last round of analysis. The final 58 (for men) and 62 (for women) items retained from this round were factorially simple and had primary-factor pattern coefficients greater than or equal to .30 for all four samples, with the exception of Identification (high loadings for women only) and some Solidarity items (for women or 104 men only). Oblique primary-factor intercorrelations obtained in this final round of factor analysis remained acceptably low, ranging in magnitude from .00 to .30. (Factors and correlations among them described here are for the best [oblique] solutions obtained in the final round of factor analysis.) The 58 (for men) and 62 (for women) retained items form the core of the Bonds Scale. While scale development is continuing, the psychometric properties of this form of the scale were strong enough to justify its use in the current study. However, based on further analyses conducted on the scale in preparation for the present study, some changes were made to the scale for the purpose of the current study. The internal consistency for the Solidarity Scale was very low for all four samples (.46 and .40 for the 13-item scale for student and community men, respectively; .38 and .23 for the 11 -item scale for student and community women, respectively). Given that the conceptual strength of the factor was in the women-only items regarding jealousy, these 4 items were retained (and scored so that a high score indicated a high level of jealousy) and the rest were dropped. This resulted in the alpha rising markedly to .79 for both the women's samples. No equivalent men-only core of items could be found. Therefore, the Solidarity Scale was totally dropped for men, leaving three factors or subscales for men. All of the Solidarity items, except the 4 women-only jealousy items, were deleted for women and unweighted least squares factor analyses (using Harris-Kaiser oblique transformations) were performed on the reduced item sets for both female samples. Five factors remained in the same structure as in previous analyses. Given the strong factorially simple structure and the consistently high level of internal consistency for all five subscales for women, these five scales were used in the current study. In summary, the three factors common to women and men are Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The two women-only factors are Identification and Jealousy. For the purpose of the current study, the 2 least strong Items of the Cross-Gender Preference Scale were dropped, bringing the number of items on this scale down to 15. The 3 least strong Same-Gender Preference Items were dropped, bringing the number of items in that scale down to 15 as well. All 10 Valuing items were retained, as were all 6 Identification items and all 4 Jealousy items. 105 Interscale correlations for the resulting 50-item Bonds Between Women Scale and 40-item Bonds Between Men Scale were acceptably low, ranging in magnitude from .00 to .54 for the student and community samples of women and men. The final version of the women's scale used in the current study contained 60 items due to the addition of 4 new Identification items and 6 new Jealousy items. The additional 4 Identification items and 6 Jealousy items were drawn from a revised version of the Bonds for which separate data have been collected but not analyzed (Woolsey et al., 1988a). The 60-item Bonds Between Women Scale used in the current study is found in Part Two of the sample questionnaire (see Appendix A). Item numbers for each of the five subscales are (new items in bold print and reverse-scored items underlined): Valuing (1,5, 10,15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 39, 44); Cross-Gender Preference (2, 6,11,16, 21, 26, 31, 36, 40, 45, 49, 51, 53, 56, 59); Same-Gender Preference (3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 37, 42, 47, 50, 52, 55, 58, 60); Identification (4, 9, 14, 19,24,29, 34,38, 43, 48); and Jealousy (7,12,17, 22,27,32,41, 46,54, 57). The 40-item Bonds Between Men Scale used in the current study (see Appendix A) contains the following subscales and items (reverse-scored items underlined): Valuing (1,4, 7, 10, 13, J6.19, 22, 25, 28); Cross-Gender Preference (2, 5, 8,11,14,17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39); and Same-Gender Preference (3, 6, 9, 12,15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40). Scoring. Each item on the Bonds Scale receives a score from 1 (definitely not true) to 6 (definitely true). A separate score is derived for each of the five (for women) and 3 (for men) subscales by reversing the value of reverse-scored items and then summing the score for all items contained in the subscale. Reliability. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (computed from the student and community data) for each of the subscales of the 50-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the 40-item Bonds Between Men Scale ranged from .77 to .90. Test-retest reliability has not been investigated. 106 Validity. Evidence of convergent validity for four subscales - Cross-Gender Preference (29 items), Same-Gender Preference (29 items), Valuing (10 items), and Identification (7 items) -- of an earlier 75-item version of the Bonds Between Women Scale was provided by Sigal's (1987) study of the homosocial bonds, liberated behaviour, and self-esteem of 112 single, childless women. As hypothesized, nontraditional, feminist women (i.e., women with high scores on the Liberated Behavior Questionnaire [Ghaffaradli-Doty & Carlson, 1979]) had significantly higher mean scores on Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, and Identification and significantly lower mean scores on Cross-Gender Preference than did traditional women. Largely unsupported were predictions that women with high scores on Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, and Identification and low scores on Cross-Gender Preference would obtain significantly higher self-esteem and mastery scores than would women with low scores on Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, Identification and high scores on Cross-Gender Preference. Convergent validity also was investigated in the present study by testing the hypotheses that scores on the Bonds subscales would be predictive of (a) the sizes of same- and cross-gender networks, and (b) mentoring behaviours and relationship provision scores. These results are reported in Chapter IV (Results). Construct validity has been assessed, in part, by the evidence of convergent validity cited above and by repeated factor analyses (Woolsey et al., 1988a) described earlier which resulted in the same factor structure of conceptually meaningful factors. This process was continued with factor analyses of the data collected for the current study (these results are reported in Appendix C [Preliminary Analyses]). 3. Supportive (Mentoring) Functions and Behaviours Development of the Scale. Schroeder (1988/1989) wrote the items for the supportive functions and behaviours measures based on an extensive review of the literature on mentoring roles, functions, and behaviours. Originally, six items were written to represent each of nine mentor 107 functions. Six of the functions were classified as career functions which "enhance learning the ropes and preparing for advancement in an organization" (Kram, 1985, p. 22). These functions were Sponsoring, Exposure and Visibility, Teaching the Job, Teaching the Informal System, Protection by Prevention, and Protection by Absorption. The remaining three functions were classified as psychosocial functions which "enhance a sense of competence, clarity of identity, and effectiveness in a professional role" (Kram, 1985, p. 22). These functions were Role Modeling, Encouragement, and Personal Counselling. To verify that the items written were representative of the functions for which they were written, five naive judges were asked to sort the items according to which function they believed each item to represent. Three of the five judges correctly sorted all 54 items; the remaining two judges incorrectly sorted one item each. Because of the high agreement between the judges, all 54 items were included in a pilot study of the scale. The results of the pilot study (18 respondents from the Sales and Marketing Diploma Program at UBC) led to several changes in the original version of the questionnaire. The low response rate (21.9%) was attributed, in part, to questionnaire design (too many items rated for too many people). Therefore, the questionnaire was shortened in the following ways. First, the number of items for each function was reduced from six to five by deleting the item on each scale which least affected the internal consistency of the function. Second, Protection by Absorption and Protection by Prevention were collapsed into one 5-item function (Protection) because of the high correlations between the two functions. Third, because the perceived effect of each activity was found to be highly correlated with the extent to which ft was provided, it was decided to assess extent only. That is, each item was to receive one rating from 0 (never) to 4 (frequently) according to the exfenf to which each person identified engaged in that behaviour on behalf of the respondent. Finally, changes were made to the number of people to be rated by each respondent and to the manner in which the initials of these people were elicited. The revised questionnaire asked respondents to list the initials of people in their organization who were currently providing them or who had provided them with the following eight mentor functions (in this order): Sponsoring, Role Modeling, Teaching the Informal System, Personal Counselling, Teaching the Job, 108 Exposure and Visibility, Encouragement, and Protection. The format and questions (items 1 to 8) used in this identification process are located under Supportive Functions in Part One of the questionnaire used in the present study (see Appendix A). In the current study, the procedure for identifying providers of mentoring behaviours was nearly identical to that used by Schroeder (1988/1989), the main difference being the maximum number of people respondents were asked to list (five in the current study, three in Schroeder's). In his pilot study, Schroeder found that people listed an average of three people for each function. When people in the pilot study were asked to list up to five providers and to rate each person regardless of the number of functions provided, persons listed as providing less than three functions were subsequently rated as providing very low levels of mentoring behaviours overall. Thus, information about these people provided very little additional information and responding to individual items in regard to these people may have caused the respondents to become disillusioned with the questionnaire. In his revised questionnaire, Schroeder requested respondents to answer each of the 40 mentoring activities for up to three of the people listed most often as providers of mentor functions. The person listed most frequently was rated regardless of the number of functions he or she had been identified as providing. A second or third person was rated only if he or she provided at least three mentoring functions. The provision of mentoring behaviours by networks of individuals (i.e., same-gender, cross-gender) as opposed to single individuals, was the focus of the present study. To prevent the loss of information about the size and gender composition of the networks as a whole, respondents were asked to list up to five persons for each mentoring function. Then, rather than rating individuals separately on each of the 40 mentoring activities, each network (up to 10 same- or cross-gender persons listed most frequently) was rated as a whole on each of the 40 mentoring activities. The format and instructions for identifying the networks to be rated are located (a) under the title Network Table (which follows the Supportive Functions section of the questionnaire), and (b) in the introductory section under the title Supportive Behaviours in Part One of the questionnaire (see 109 Appendix A). This procedure was a modification of procedures used for similar purposes by Fischer (1982), Schroeder (1988/1989), and Woolsey et al. (1988b). Schroeder's (1988/1989) revised questionnaire was completed by 442 management, supervisory, professional, and technical employees in five different organizations (in energy, food wholesaling, petroleum, communications, and mining industries in British Columbia). The overall response rate for distributed questionnaires was 70.8% (442 of 624). Three hundred and ninety-seven of the 442 questionnaires returned were useable. The average age of the sample of respondents (n = 397) was 37.99 years (SD = 7.06) and the average length of organizational tenure was 10.31 years (SD = 4.13). One hundred eleven (28.0%) of the respondents were women; 286 (72.0%) were men. Depending on the number of people respondents listed as providing three or more mentoring functions, each respondent rated between one and three people on each of the 40 mentoring behaviours listed under Supportive Behaviours in Part Two of the questionnaire used in the current study (see Appendix A). The mentoring behaviour scale items corresponding to the eight mentoring functions are as follows: Sponsoring (1,9,17,25, 33); Role Modeling (2,10,18, 26, 34); Teaching the Job (3,11,19, 27, 35); Personal Counselling (4,12, 20, 28, 36); Exposure and Visibility (5,13, 21, 29, 37); Encouragement (6,14, 22, 30, 38); Protection (7,15, 23, 31, 39); and Teaching the Informal System (8,16, 24, 32, 40). The results of principal component analyses performed on the ratings obtained for the eight mentoring behaviour scales suggested that "the eight supportive [mentoring] behaviour scales loaded on one general component that accounted for over 50% of the variance" (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 108). When principal component analyses were performed on the individual items (as opposed to the subscales as described above), six to eight components emerged. The items loading on each component were consistent with the item content of the original eight mentoring behaviour scales which were conceptually derived (K.G. Schroeder, personal communication, 1988). However, "the high correlations among the supportive [mentoring] behaviour scales... indicate that respondents who received relatively high levels of behaviours associated with one function also 110 received relatively high levels of behaviours associated with the other functions" (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 154). The pattern of results noted above lent little empirical support for a separation of mentoring behaviours into career functions and psychosocial functions. Rather, the overall level of mentoring behaviours provided was indicated as the most meaningful unit of analysis. Schroeder (1988/1989) called this one general supportive behaviour component the Total Supportive Behaviour Score (TSBS). The TSBS was the unit of analysis that was adopted in the current study. The psychosocial aspect of organizational relationships was measured by the Close Social Relationships Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988b). Scoring. Each of the 40 supportive (mentoring) behaviour items is rated according to the extent to which each source of mentoring behaviours engages in that activity on behalf of the respondent. The 5-point rating scale ranges from 0 (never) to 4 (frequently). A separate score may be derived for each mentoring behaviour scale by summing the responses to each of the five items in the scale. The Total Supportive Behaviour Score (TSBS) is derived by adding the scores obtained for each of the eight mentoring behaviour scales. All items are positively worded. Reliability. Based on the results obtained in Schroeder's (1988/1989) analysis of the data from 397 respondents, the individual supportive behaviour scales and the global supportive behaviour scale were judged to have adequate internal consistency. Alpha coefficients ranged from .78 to .92 for each of the eight supportive behaviour scales (alphas derived separately for each of the three sources of mentoring behaviours). The alphas for the TSBS were .96, .96, and .95 for the first, second, and third sources of mentoring behaviours, respectively. Test-retest reliability has not been assessed. Validity. Convergent validity of the supportive behaviours scales was assessed by comparing the ratings for people who were viewed as mentors with ratings of people who were not I l l viewed as mentors (according to two different definitions of mentors used in previous research). For both definitions, persons who were viewed as mentors received significantly higher mean scores on all eight supportive behaviour scales and on the TSBS than persons who were not viewed as mentors. In addition, persons who were viewed as mentors according to only one mentor definition received significantly lower mean global ratings (TSBS) than persons who were viewed as mentors according to both definitions and significantly higher mean global ratings (TSBS) than persons who were not viewed as mentors according to both definitions (Schroeder, 1988/1989). The 397 respondents in Schroeder's (1988/1989) study were similar in age, gender, occupation, and job tenure to the respondent population proposed for the current study. Therefore, use of Schroeder's supportive functions and behaviours measures with the respondents in the present study was judged to be valid. 4. Satisfaction With Progression Satisfaction with progression within the organization was assessed using a 5-item scale developed by Schroeder (1988/1989). This variable was conceptualized as "employee satisfaction with changes in salary, positions, and professional development over the course of organizational tenure" (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 76). The instructions and items (numbers 16 to 20) for this scale are listed in Part One of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). The items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). All items are positively worded, so a high score indicates a high degree of satisfaction with progression. Schroeder (1988/1989) found the internal consistency of this scale to be .84 in his pilot study and .81 in his main study. 5. Average Annual Salary Increase This variable was assessed by averaging the respondent's yearly increase in salary over the length of employment in the current organization. The three items used to gather information for this variable were placed in the Demographic Measures section of Part One of the questionnaire (see 112 Appendix A, Demographic Measures: item numbers 6,10,11). Schroeder (1988/1989) used the same items and method of assessing average annual salary increase in his study. 6. Average Number of Promotions per Year This variable was assessed by dividing the number of promotions obtained since the respondent first joined his or her present organization by the number of years of employment with that organization. The two items used to gather information for this variable (item numbers 6 and 9) are listed under Demographic Measures in Appendix A. The same items and method of assessment were used by Schroeder (1988/1989). 7. Skill Development Three types of skill development were assessed: job, interpersonal, and conceptual. The conceptual basis for these scales was provided by Katz (1955) and Reber and Van Gilder (1982) who identified three types of skills (technical, human, and conceptual) that are important for successful administration. Technical (job) skill refers to "a person's proficiency in, and understanding of, the specific techniques, processes, methods, and procedures required in carrying out a particular job" (Reber & Van Gilder, 1982, p. 12). Human (interpersonal) skill is "the ability to interact effectively with people" (Reber & Van Gilder, 1982, p. 12). Finally, conceptual skill is defined as a manager's ability to "visualize the organization as an integrated whole, recognizing how a change in any one part affects all the other parts. It's the ability to see the big picture'" (Reber & Van Gilder, 1982, p. 12). The individual scales developed to measure each of these three skills are described separately below. Job Skill Development. Job skill development was assessed using a list of 25 separate job skills identified by Pinder (1982) and Pinder and Schroeder (1987). The degree to which the respondent has developed each of the 25 skills since joining his or her present organization is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal). The 25 skills are listed in Appendix A 113 under Job Skill Skill Development; the instructions and response format for the measure as listed in Appendix A were developed by Schroeder (1988/1989). Pinder's (1982) attempts to form subscales from the items in the job skill development scale were unsuccessful. The average inter-item correlations in two studies were .48 (Pinder, 1982) and .31 (Schroeder, 1988/1989). The internal consistency of the scale was .96 in Pinder's (1982) study, .92 in Schroeder's (1988/1989) pilot study, and .93 in Schroeder "s (1988/1989) main study. Only 13 (3.7%) of the 356 respondents in Pinder's (1982) investigation stated that they had developed skills other than those listed on the job skill development scale, indicating that the scale is a relatively complete list of the skills required in daily work. Interpersonal Skill Development. This 5-item scale was developed by Schroeder (1988/1989). He wrote one item to assess each of the five qualities or attitudes identified by Reber and Van Gilder (1982) as important for the development of a manager's effectiveness in interpersonal relationships. These qualities or attitudes are: empathy, acceptance of individual differences, self-awareness, perceptual awareness, and an employee orientation. These items (numbers 3, 6, 9,12, and 15) are listed in Appendix A under Acceptance by Co-workers, Conceptual Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development. Each of these items is scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). The internal consistency of the scale was .77 in Schroeder's (1988/1989) study. Conceptual Skill Development. This 5-item scale was developed by Pinder (1982). The items refer to the ability to recognize how the organization operates as a whole, that is, the ability to understand "the bigger picture," as discussed by Reber and Van Gilder (1982). Each item is scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). The items (numbers 2, 5, 8,11, and 14) are listed in Appendix A under Acceptance by Co-workers, Conceptual Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development. The internal consistency of the conceptual skill development scale 114 was .86 in Pinder's (1982) study, .82 in Schroeder's (1988/1989) pilot study, and .82 in Schroeder's (1988/1989) main study. 8. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction was assessed using the 5-item general satisfaction scale of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey has been used widely in research and job change projects (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Oldham, Hackman, & Stepina, 1979). The general satisfaction scale is a measure of personal affective reactions to a job in general. The items for this scale (numbers 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34) are listed under Job Satisfaction in Appendix A. Three of the items (numbers 30, 31, and 32) assess general satisfaction directly by asking respondents to rate their own feelings about their job. Two items (numbers 33 and 34) assess general satisfaction indirectly by asking respondents to rate the general reactions of ofner people (in jobs similar to the respondent's in the organization) to their jobs. Each item is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Item numbers 31 and 34 are reversed prior to scoring (i.e., 7=1, 6=2, 5=3, 4=4, 3=5, 2 = 6,1 =7). The internal consistency of the general satisfaction scale has been found to be .76 (Hackman & Oldham, 1974) and .77 (Oldham et al., 1979) in two different studies. 9. Organizational Commitment The 9-item short form of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) was used to assess the commitment of the individual to the organization. Organizational commitment is defined as the "relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226). It is "a general affective response to the organization as a whole [it] emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals and values" (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226). As such, organizational commitment differs from job satisfaction which emphasizes affective reactions to the specific job environment where an employee carries out his or her work (Mowday et al., 1979). The items for the 115 OCQ (numbers 21 to 29) are listed under Organizational Commitment in Appendix A. The items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). As all of the items are positively worded, a high score indicates a high level of commitment to the organization. Mowday et al. (1979) reported a range of internal consistency from .84 to .90 when the OCQ was used with diverse samples (e.g., scientists and engineers, university employees, bank employees). Schroeder (1988/1989) found the internal consistency to be .93 in his pilot study and .92 in his main study. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating scores on the OCQ to scores on a measure assessing employees' intentions to leave the organization. The relatively high negative correlations (i.e., ranging from -.31 to -.63 in diverse samples) gave evidence of convergent validity (Mowday etal., 1979). Evidence of discriminant validity was less conclusive. While the percentage of variance shared by organizational commitment and measures such as career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job involvement was generally under 25% and not over 50%, the correlations between the scales were higher than would have been desirable for conclusive evidence of discriminant validity. 10. Acceptance by Co-workers Acceptance by co-workers was assessed using a 5-item scale developed by Schroeder (1988/1989). The scale was designed to measure the degree to which an employee's co-workers accept the employee's beliefs, opinions, and judgement. The content of the scale was suggested by another 5-item co-worker support scale used by Pinder and Schroeder (1987). The items for this scale (numbers 1, 4, 7,10, and 13) can be found under Acceptance by Co-workers, Conceptual Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development in Appendix A. Each item is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). Item numbers 4 and 13 are reverse scored. Schroeder (1988/1989) found the internal consistency of this scale to be .83. 116 11. Loneliness at Work Loneliness at work was assessed using an adapted version of the 20-item revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Loneliness "reflects an individual's subjective perception of deficiencies in his or her network of social relationships" (Russell, Cutrona, Rose, & Yurko, 1984, p. 1313). Presently, the UCLA Loneliness Scale is the most widely used measure of loneliness (Russell, 1982). Scale development began with sampling 25 items from Sisenwein's (1964/1965) loneliness scale. Respondents in two samples of young adults at UCLA (clinical sample and student sample) responded to each of the 25 items by rating on a 4-point scale how frequently they felt the way described in the item. In addition, the participants rated how lonely they were compared to other persons. They also described their present affective state by rating the intensity of feelings such as "empty," "restless," "bored," and "depressed." The final loneliness scale consisted of 20 items selected on the basis of high item-total correlations (retained items had correlations above .50). Internal consistency for this scale was .96. This version was eventually revised for three reasons: (a) because all items on the scale were worded in the same (lonely) direction, there was concern about response bias; (b) because of the social stigma associated with loneliness, it was thought that respondents might distort their responses to appear less lonely; and (c) the magnitude of the correlations between the loneliness scale and other measures such as self-esteem and depression indicated a problem with discriminant validity. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale was developed to address these issues. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale has 10 positively scored items and 10 negatively scored items. Two studies using the revised scale have shown evidence for validity (Russell et al., 1980). In the first study concurrent validity was established by finding significant positive correlations between loneliness scores and measures of depression and anxiety. Loneliness scores were not significantly related to scores on measures conceptually unrelated to loneliness (e.g., feeling creative, embarrassed, or surprised). In the second study, evidence of concurrent validity was obtained by examining the relationship between loneliness scores and measures of social activities and 117 relationships. The discriminant validity of the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale was indicated by findings that the loneliness scores were not confounded by social desirability. Further evidence of discriminant validity was indicated by findings that revised UCLA loneliness scores were more highly correlated with other measures of loneliness than with measures of personality variables and mood. Internal consistency was found to be .94 in both studies reported by Russell et al. (1980). The 20 items for the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale can be found under Loneliness at Work in Appendix A. The words "at work" have been inserted into each item to ensure that respondents respond to the items with their work setting in mind. Each item is scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). Item numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 9,10,15,16,19, and 20 should be reversed (i.e., 1 =4, 2=3, 3=2, 4 = 1) prior to summing the scores for all 20 items to obtain a total loneliness score. 12. Demographic Measures The items in the Demographic Measures section of the questionnaire (see Appendix A) were used to gather information about each respondent's age, gender, marital status, education, ethnic designation, length of organizational tenure, number of promotions, current salary, initial salary, and current job category. C. DESIGN AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The design and methods of statistical analysis employed in the current study are outlined in this section. The variables, measures, design, and analysis for each of the five research questions are summarized in Figures 2 to 6. The independent variables and the measures utilized in gathering the independent variable data are listed across the top portion of each figure; the dependent variables and the measures associated with them are listed across the middle section of each figure. Finally, the design and methods of statistical analysis are summarized at the bottom of each figure. The large number of statistical analyses conducted to test the hypotheses for this study greatly increased the risk of Type I error. To counteract this risk, the alpha for tests of significance Independent Variables Measure: * Bonds Between Women/ Bonds Between Men Scale Cross-Gender Preference Same-Gender Preference Identification (women only) Jealousy (women only) Dependent Variables Measure: * Network Table completed in preparation for administration of Schroeder's (1988/1989) supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure Size of same-gender network Size of cross-gender network Design and Analysis: Standard multiple regression analysis and one-tailed tests of significance of the bivariate correlations between independent and dependent variables. Each dependent variable was regressed separately onto homosocial attitudes (three scales for men, five scales for women). Separate analyses were conducted for women and men, making a total of four regression analyses. Alpha was set at .0125. Figure 2. Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 1: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? Independent Variables Measure: Cross-Gender Preference Same-Gender Preference Valuing Identification (women only) Jealousy (women only) * Bonds Between Women/ Bonds Between Men Scale Dependent Variables Measures: * Schroeder's (1988/1989) supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure * Close Social Relationships Scale Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score Design and Analysis: Standard multiple regression analysis and one-tailed tests of significance of the bivariate correlations between independent and dependent variables. Each dependent variable was regressed separately onto homosocial attitudes (three scales for men, five scales for women). Separate analyses were done for men and women and for the provisions of same- and cross-gender networks, bringing the total number of regression analyses for this question to 20. Alpha was set at .0025. Figure 3. Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 2: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? Independent Variables Dependent Variables Measures: * Schroeder's (1988/1989) supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure * Close Social Relationships Scale Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score Gender composition of network (same-gender, cross-gender) Relationship provisions: • Intimacy • Similarity • Defiance of Convention • Respect for Differences Design and Analysis: 1. 2 x 2 ANOVA and simple main effects analysis for the significant interaction (for the supportive [mentoring] behaviours portion of the question). 2. 2 x 2 MANOVA followed up with four ANOVAs and simple main effects analysis for one significant interaction (for the relationship provisions portion of the question). Alpha was set at .025. Figure 4. Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? Independent Variables Measures: * Network Table and Schroeder's (1988/1989) supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure * Bonds Between Women/ Bonds Between Men Scale Level of mentoring received from same-gender networks (Low, High) Same-Gender Preference Composite (Low, High) Level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks (Low, High) Cross-Gender Preference Composite (Low, High) Dependent Variables Measures: * General satisfaction scale (from the Job Diagnostic Survey) * Organizational Commitment Questionnaire * Acceptance by Co-workers Scale * Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale * Satisfaction With Progression Scale * Average Annual Salary Increase * Average Number of Promotions per Year * Job Skill Development * Interpersonal Skill Development * Conceptual Skill Development Design and Analysis: Four 2x2 MANOVAs, then each significant MANOVA was followed up with three ANOVAs. Scores for the independent variables were dichotomized at the median for each variable. Separate analyses were conducted for Level of Mentoring Received From Same-Gender Networks x Same-Gender Preference Composite and Level of Mentoring Received from Cross-Gender Networks x Cross-Gender Preference Composite. Factor scores for each of the three dependent variables were derived through maximum likelihood factor analysis of the conflation matrix for the 10 career- and job-related outcome variables listed above as measures of the dependent variables. Separate analyses were conducted for women and men. Alpha was set at .0125. Figure 5. Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 4: How do homosocial attitudes in interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? M • H Affective Outcomes Advancement Outcomes Skill Development Outcomes Affective Outcomes Advancement Outcomes Skill Development Outcomes Independent Variables Measures: * Schroeder's (1988/1989) supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure * Close Social Relationships Scale Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score Intimacy Similarity Defiance of Convention Respect for Differences Dependent Variables Measures: * General satisfaction scale (from the Job Diagnostic Survey) * Organizational Commitment Questionnaire * Acceptance by Co-workers Scale * Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale * Satisfaction With Progression Scale * Average Annual Salary Increase * Average Number of Promotions per Year * Job Skill Development * Interpersonal Skill Development * Conceptual Skill Development Affective Outcomes Advancement Outcomes Skill Development Outcomes Design and Analysis: Standard multiple regression analysis and one-tailed tests of significance of the bivariate correlations between independent and dependent variables, followed up with t-tests to test the differences between the bivariate correlations that were different in the hypothesized direction. Each dependent variable was regressed separately onto the five independent variables. Separate analyses were conducted for women and men and for the provisions of same- and cross-gender relationships, bringing the total number of regression analyses for this question to 12. Alpha was set at .0042. Figure 6. Variables, measures, design, and analysis for Research Question 5: How do levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? 123 was apportioned using the Bonferroni inequality procedure (Dunn, 1961; Marascuilo & Levin, 1983) to maintain an error rate of 5% within the first set of analyses conducted for the hypotheses associated with each research question. The alpha for the tests of significance associated with each research question is given at the end of the Design and Analysis portion of each figure (see Figures 2 to 6). Because scale development was in progress for several key variables investigated in the present study (career- and job-related outcomes, homosocial attitudes, relationship provisions), it was necessary to conduct factor analyses, utilizing data gathered in the current study, to explore the factor structures of these variables in preparation for the hypothesis-testing analyses outlined in Figures 2 to 6. The results of these factor analyses are presented in detail in Appendix C (Preliminary Analyses), and are described briefly below in order to explain some of the variables presented in Figures 2 to 6. Career- and job-related outcomes. Separate scores were obtained on each of the following 10 measures: Satisfaction With Progression, Average Annual Salary Increase, Average Number of Promotions Per Year, Job Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development, Conceptual Skill Development, Job Satisfaction (General Satisfaction Scale of the JDS), Organizational Commitment, Acceptance by Co-workers, and the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. Factor analyses performed on the correlation matrices for these scales reduced the original 10 variables to three factors, for both women and men, replicating the basic three-factor structure identified by Schroeder (1988/1989) in his principal component analysis of 11 similar variables. Factor scores obtained on each of the three factors ~ Affective Outcomes, Advancement Outcomes, and Skill Development Outcomes - were used as the measures of the dependent variables for Research Questions 4 and 5 (see Figures 5 and 6). Homosocial attitudes. The Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale data obtained from women and men in the current study were factor analyzed separately because of 124 differences in the item content of the scales. Factor analyses of the items replicated the basic five-factor simple structure (for women) and three-factor simple structure (for men) obtained by Woolsey et al. (1988a). The three factors common to women and men are Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The two women-only factors are Identification and Jealousy. Scale scores for each of the five factors (for women) and three factors (for men) were used as the measures of the independent variables for Research Questions 1 and 2 (see Figures 2 and 3). Subsequent factor analysis performed on the correlation matrix for the five Bonds scales for women, and principal component analysis performed on the three scales for men, produced two composite factors which were conceptually comparable for women and men. Factor scores on these two composite factors -- Same-Gender Preference Composite and Cross-Gender Preference Composite -- were used as the measures of two of the independent variables for Research Question 4 (see Figure 5). Relationship provisions. The Close Social Relationships Scale was completed by women and men with respect to the provisions of same- and cross-gender networks, thereby producing four different CSRS data sets to be analyzed: (a) women's same-gender, (b) women's cross-gender, (c) men's same-gender, and (d) men's cross-gender. For each of the four different data sets, factor analysis was performed on the items. Only four of the six factors found in previous research (Woolsey et al., 1988b) were replicated; in the current study, items were dropped after each round of factor analysis if they did not have a factor loading greater than or equal to .30 on the same conceptually meaningful factor for all four administration conditions. Scale scores on each of the four replicated factors -- Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect of Differences --were used as the measures of four of the dependent variables in Research Questions 2 and 3 (see Figures 3 and 4) and as the measures of four of the independent variables in Research Question 5 (see Figure 6). The fifth and sixth factors not supported by these factor analyses - Emotional Support and Lifetime Attachment - were dropped from all further analyses for the present study. 125 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS The research findings are presented in this chapter. The chapter begins with a discussion of the characteristics of the respondent sample. Following that, the hypotheses associated with each of the five research questions introduced in the preceding chapters are evaluated. Preliminary analyses conducted in preparation for the hypothesis-testing analyses are presented in Appendix C. The preliminary analyses include procedures for handling missing data and factor analyses performed to explore the factor structures of key variables used in the study (career- and job-related outcomes, homosocial attitudes, and relationship provisions). In addition, because the psychometric properties of many of the measures employed in this study have not been reported elsewhere, the scale means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliability coefficients, and so forth of all measures used in the current study also are presented in Appendix C. A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENT SAMPLE 1. Number of Respondents Information about the number of distributed, returned, excluded, and retained questionnaires is contained in Table B-1 (see Appendix B). The results in Table B-1 are presented separately for women and men, and for each of the seven participating organizations. The organizations have been broadly classified according to the industrial sector from which they were drawn (public sector, private sector, Crown corporation). The overall response rate for women was 39.0% (283 of 725 questionnaires were returned); the women's response rate for returned questionnaires within each organization ranged from 32.3% (post-secondary education) to 92.3% (utilities). Of the 283 questionnaires returned by women, 26 were excluded from analyses: 7 because of a large number of missing responses, 17 because the respondents had been employed in their current organization for less than 6 months or more than 17 126 years, and 2 because the respondents failed to identify the name of their organization. The women's response rate for useable questionnaires, then, was 35.5% (257 of 725). The overall response rate, and the response rate within most of the individual organizations, was lower for men than for women. Overall, the men's response rate for returned questionnaires was 29.6% (216 of 731); the rate within each organization ranged from 23.1% (post-secondary education) to 100.0% (equipment sales and service). Nineteen of the 216 questionnaires returned by men could not be used in the analyses: 5 because of a large number of missing responses, 13 because the respondents had less than 6 months or more than 17 years tenure with their current organization, and 1 because the respondent omitted the name of his organization. The men's response rate for useable questionnaires, then, was 27.0% (197 of 731). One of the criteria for selecting potential respondents for the study was that respondents have no more than 15 years of employment with their current organization. The 9 women and 1 man who stated that they had been employed in their current organization for 16 or 17 years were included in analyses because they were so close to the cutoff of 15 years and because their responses were needed to increase the n, particularly for the factor analyses. Ten women and 2 men with more than 17 years organizational tenure were excluded from analyses because their lengths of organizational tenure were well beyond the 15-year cutoff point. The 7 women and 11 men with less than 6 months organizational tenure were excluded from analyses because their frequency distributions for variables such as supportive (mentoring) behaviours, relationship provisions, and average number of promotions per year showed a very different pattern of responses than those for respondents with 6 months or more organizational tenure. The different patterns of responses were attributed to a lack of time (i.e., less than 6 months) to form relationships, to be promoted, and so forth. In summary, the overall response rate for returned questionnaires was 34.3% (499 of 1,456); considered separately by gender, the overall response rate was 39.0% for women and 29.6% for men. A total of 45 questionnaires (3.1% of those returned) could not be used in analyses because of incomplete responses, because the respondents had less than 6 months or more than 17 years 127 organizational tenure, or because respondents had not specified the name of their organization. The response rate for useable questionnaires was 31.2% (454 of 1,456) overall, or 35.5% for women and 27.0% for men. The response rates for useable questionnaires varied greatly by organization and industrial sector. The lowest response rates were obtained from the two post-secondary education institutions in the public sector; the rates within these organizations ranged from 21.0% for the men in one organization to 43.4% for the women in the other organization. By far, the highest response rates were achieved in the private sector organizations and the Crown corporation; the rates in these organizations ranged from 50.0% for the women in the equipment sales and service company to 100.0% for the men in that same company. 2. Description of the Sample In this subsection, the sample of respondents is described in terms of age, organizational tenure, education, job category, marital status, and ethnic designation. In addition, the sample of respondents (257 women, 197 men) is compared to the sample of potential respondents (725 women, 731 men) on the variables of age and organizational tenure. The sample of potential respondents includes all persons (in all seven participating organizations) to whom the questionnaire packages were distributed. Tables for all of these descriptive variables are located in Appendix B. Female and male respondents in both the actual and potential samples were very similar in age and organizational tenure (see Table B-2). The only difference noted was that the actual respondents were slightly younger than the potential respondents: the average ages in the actual sample were 35.62 years (for women) and 36.13 years (for men) as compared with 37.43 years (for women) and 37.46 years (for men) in the potential sample. The average lengths of organizational tenure in the actual sample were 6.00 years for women and 5.38 years for men; the means in the potential sample were 5.43 years for women and 5.86 years for men. The highest levels of education obtained by the actual respondents are outlined in Table B-3. The percentages indicate that the women and men in the study had obtained roughly the same 128 levels of education. The majority of the respondents had obtained an undergraduate or graduate degree (67.7% of the women, 68.5% of the men). The next largest percentage of respondents had received a college diploma or had undertaken some college, university, or vocational training (26.0% of the women, 29.5% of the men). Finally, 6.2% of the women and 2.0% of the men were educated up to the level of high school graduation. The job categories within which the respondents were employed are listed in Table B-4. The single job category occupied by the largest percentage of respondents was that of professional (32.3% of the women, 30.5% of the men). This was followed by the technical job category which was occupied by 19.8% of the women and 21.8% of the men. The percentages of respondents who had indicated that they occupied some type of middle or senior management position were 20.3% for women and 21.9% for men. First line supervisor positions were occupied by 11.7% of the women and 6.7% of the men. In summary, the women and men respondents in this study were very similar in terms of the job categories in which they were employed. Table B-5 contains information about the marital status of respondents. Relatively equal percentages of women and men were contained within each category for marital status. The largest percentage of the sample was married (52.9% of the women, 60.9% of the men), followed by 25.7% of the women and 23.4% of the men in the never married or single category. The sample was predominantly Anglo-European/Canadian in terms of ethnic designation: 80.9% of the women and 85.8% of the men reported that they were Anglo-European/Canadian; much smaller percentages of respondents reported membership in other ethnic groups (see Table B-6). B. HYPOTHESIS-TESTING ANALYSES The results of the statistical analyses performed to test the hypotheses associated with each of the five research questions addressed in the current study are presented in this section. The hypotheses are restated within each subsection as the findings associated with each research question are presented. 129 1. Research Question 1: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? Methods of Statistical Analysis Two methods of statistical analysis were employed to evaluate the two hypotheses associated with Research Question 1. First, standard multiple regression was utilized to determine if size of same- and cross-gender supportive (mentoring) networks could be predicted from three homosocial attitudes (for men) and five homosocial attitudes (for women). The three homosocial attitudes common to women and men were Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The two additional homosocial attitudes for women were Jealousy and Identification. (See Appendix C [Preliminary Analyses] for the results of the factor analyses of the homosocial attitudes data collected for the current study, and for a listing of the exact items used in computations of homosocial attitude subscale scores in the present study.) Separate regression analyses were performed for women and men (because of the different numbers of independent variables for each gender) and for each dependent variable. To counteract the increased risk of Type I error caused by the number of regression analyses (four), alpha was set at .0125 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure. As a second method of evaluating the hypotheses, one-tailed tests of significance were performed on the bivariate correlations between each independent variable and each dependent variable. Given the exploratory nature of the analyses regarding homosocial attitudes, the alpha for these tests of significance remained at .0125 so as not to increase unduly the probability of making Type II errors. As is described in more detail after the statement of each hypothesis, the results of the regression analyses did not produce particularly helpful information with which to make decisions about accepting or rejecting the hypotheses. Therefore, the results of the regression analyses are reported only in the text, and primarily for descriptive purposes: the exact values of nonsignificant 130 results are not reported; only those multiple fts or beta weights significant at the required alpha level of .0125 are reported. Acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses was based primarily on the results of the one-tailed tests of significance of the bivariate correlations between each independent variable (one of three to five homosocial attitudes) and each dependent variable (size of same-gender network or size of cross-gender network). These bivariate correlations are reported in Table 1 and described in the text which follows. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. The same-gender networks of respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will be significantly larger than the same-gender networks of respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The size of each respondent's same-gender network was determined by tallying the number of same-gender persons listed in the Network Table in which providers of supportive (mentoring) functions were listed. Standard multiple regression was performed between size of same-gender network (Size SGnet) as the dependent variable and the three (for men) and five (for women) homosocial attitudes as independent variables. The multiple ft obtained for women was significant [ft = .26, F (5, 216) = 3.15, p < .01, n = 222]. However, none of the five homosocial attitudes had a significant beta weight. Two of the five bivariate correlations between Size SGnet and each of the five homosocial attitudes were significant in the hypothesized direction at the desired alpha level (.0125): the correlation between Cross-Gender Preference and Size SGnet was -.21 (p = .001); the correlation between Valuing and Size SGnet was .18 (p < .005). The remaining three bivariate correlations for women were not significant at the required alpha level. For the men, significance was not attained at the desired alpha level for the multiple ft, the three beta weights, or the three bivariate correlations. 131 Table 1 Bivariate Correlations Between Homosocial Attitudes and Size of Same- and Cross-Gender Supportive (Mentoring) Networks Predictor variable' Outcome CG Pref SG Pref Valuing Identification Jealousy variable Women (n = 222) SizeSGnet -.21*** .15* .18** .12* -.08 SizeCGnet .18** -.08 -.08 -.02 .00 Men (n = 168) SizeSGnet -.14* .02 .14* SizeCGnet .03 -.10 .13 Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference; Size SGnet = size of same-gender supportive (mentoring) network; Size CGnet = size of cross-gender supportive (mentoring) network. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0125 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with two or more asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. aThere were three predictor variables (homosocial attitudes) for men and five for women. The three homosocial attitudes common to men and women were Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The two additional homosocial attitudes for women were Identification and Jealousy (because these two attitudes are not applicable to men, no bivariate correlations are reported for these variables for men). *p < .05. **p < .005. ***p< .001. 132 In summary, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported by the results for women and not supported by the results for men. For women, there was a significant relationship between the five homosocial attitudes in combination and the size of same-gender networks. The five nonsignificant beta weights after this significant multiple R likely were due to the shared variance of the independent variables. The clearest source of support for a portion of Hypothesis 1 was found in the women's bivariate correlations for Cross-Gender Preference/Size SGnet and Valuing/Size SGnet. As hypothesized, these results indicated that the same-gender networks of women respondents who reported low levels of Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Valuing were significantly larger than the same-gender networks of women respondents who reported high levels of Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Valuing. The women's results did not support the portions of Hypothesis 1 related to the homosocial attitudes of Same-Gender Preference, Identification, and Jealousy. For men, no relationship was found between homosocial attitudes and size of same-gender networks. Hypothesis 2. The cross-gender networks of respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will be significantly larger than the cross-gender networks of respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The size of each respondent's cross-gender network was calculated by counting the number of cross-gender persons listed in the Network Table as providers of supportive (mentoring) functions. Standard multiple regression was performed with size of cross-gender network (Size CGnet) as the dependent variable and the five (for women) and three (for men) homosocial attitudes as the independent variables. For women, there was not much relationship between the five homosocial attitudes in combination and size of cross-gender network: significance at the desired alpha level 133 (.0125) was not reached for the multiple R, and only Cross-Gender Preference had a significant beta weight [beta = .26, t (216) = 2.92, p < .005]. Only one of the five bivariate correlations was significant at the required level: the correlation between Cross-Gender Preference and Size CGnet was .18 (p < .005). For men, no relationship was indicated between homosocial attitudes and size of cross-gender network. Significance was not reached for the multiple R, the beta weights, or the bivariate correlations. In summary, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported by the results for women and not supported by the results for men. The cross-gender networks of women who reported high levels of Cross-Gender Preference were significantly larger than the cross-gender networks of women respondents who reported low levels of Cross-Gender Preference. The homosocial attitudes of Same-Gender Preference and Valuing were not significantly related to size of cross-gender networks for women or men, nor were the attitudes of Identification and Jealousy (for women) and Cross-Gender Preference (for men). 2. Research Question 2: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? Methods of Statistical Analysis The two hypotheses associated with Research Question 2 were evaluated using the same methods of statistical analysis as those employed for Research Question 1. First, standard multiple regression was performed to assess whether levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks could be predicted from five homosocial attitudes (for women) and three homosocial attitudes (for men). Again, the three homosocial attitudes common to women and men were Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. The two homosocial attitudes applicable to women only were Jealousy 134 and Identification. (See Appendix C [Preliminary Analyses] for the results of the factor analyses of the homosocial attitudes data collected for the present study, and for a listing of the exact items used in computations of homosocial attitude subscale scores in the current study.) The levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks were assessed by the Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score (TSBS) for a) each respondent's same-gender network and b) each respondents cross-gender network. Relationship provisions were measured by scores (for same- and cross-gender networks) on four subscales of the Close Social Relationships Scale: a) Intimacy, b) Similarity, c) Defiance of Convention, and d) Respect for Differences. (A listing of the exact items used to compute these four subscale scores is contained in Appendix C, where the results of the factor analyses of the relationship provisions data collected for the current study are presented.) Separate regression analyses were performed for each of the five dependent variables. As well, separate analyses were conducted for women and men and for the provisions of same- and cross-gender networks. Therefore, because a total of 20 regression analyses were performed for this question, alpha was set at .0025 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure. The second method of evaluating the hypotheses associated with Research Question 2 was performing one-tailed tests of significance on the bivariate correlations between each predictor variable and each dependent variable. The alpha for these significance tests remained at .0025 so as not to increase unduly the risk of making Type II errors in this exploratory investigation. As with the results for Hypotheses 1 and 2 associated with Research Question 1, the results of the regression analyses did not produce particularly useful information with which to make decisions about accepting or rejecting Hypotheses 3 and 4. Again, the results of the regression analyses are reported only in the text, and primarily for descriptive purposes; exact values are reported only for those multiple Rs and beta weights that reached significance at the required alpha level of .0025. Acceptance or rejection of Hypotheses 3 and 4 was based primarily on the results of the one-tailed tests of significance of the bivariate correlations between each independent variable (one of three to five homosocial attitudes) and each dependent variable (levels of supportive 135 behaviours or relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks). The bivariate correlations for women are reported in Table 2; the bivariate correlations for men are reported in Table 3. Hypotheses Hypothesis 3. Respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will receive significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions from same-gender networks than will respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. Results for supportive (mentoring) behaviours. Separate standard multiple regression analyses were performed for women and men. For women, the TSBS for same-gender (SG) networks was regressed onto the five homosocial attitudes; for men, the SG TSBS was regressed onto the three homosocial attitudes. In addition, one-tailed tests of significance were performed on the bivariate correlations between each predictor variable and each dependent variable (see Tables 2 and 3). For women, significance at the required alpha level (.0025) was not attained for the multiple R, the five beta weights, or the five bivariate correlations. For men, the multiple R was not significant at the required alpha level (.0025). None of the three beta weights or the three bivariate correlations was significant at the required level either. In summary, the supportive (mentoring) behaviours portion of Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the results for women or men; no significant relationship was found between homosocial attitudes and the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same-gender networks. 136 Table 2 Bivariate Correlations Between Homosocial Attitudes and Levels of Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received From Same- and Cross-Gender Networks (Women) Predictor variable Outcome n CG Pref SG Pref Valuing Identification Jealousy variable Same-gender networks TSBS 188 -.11 .10 .14* .09 .01 Intimacy 176 25***** .09 24***** 27***** - .11 Similarity 176 .03 .09 .15* .14* .08 DefCon 176 -.04 24***** .20*** .10 .18^ RespDiff 175 35***** -.05 2g**» .20*** -.22 Cross-gender networks TSBS 196 2Q**** -.14* -.17** -.07 .00 Intimacy 153 .03 -.12 .01 .04 .03 Similarity 153 .13 -.05 - .06 .05 .08 DefCon 153 .02 .04 - .04 - .08 .13* RespDiff 153 - .14* 21*** .10 .03 -.19** Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference; TSBS = Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score; DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0025 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with four or more asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .005. ****p < .0025. *****p< .001. Table 3 Bivariate Correlations Between Homosocial Attitudes and Levels of Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received From Same- and Cross-Gender Networks (Men) Predictor variable Outcome n CG Pref SG Pref Valuing variable Same-gender networks TSBS 159 It -.14 .15* .20** Intimacy 142 -.07 .02 .09 Similarity 142 -.03 22*** .21** DefCon 142 -.05 .12 .19* RespDiff 142 28**** - .10 .07 Cross-gender networks TSBS 113 .04 .07 .12 Intimacy 87 -.19* -.10 Similarity 87 .05 .11 * .21 DefCon 87 .11 .06 .23* RespDiff 87 - .27** 34** .17 Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference; TSBS = Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score; DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0025 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with four asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005. ****p< .001. 138 Results for relationship provisions. Separate standard multiple regression analyses were performed for women and men. For women, levels of Intimacy (INT), Similarity (SIM), Defiance of Convention (DC), and Respect for Differences (RD) received from same-gender networks were regressed separately onto the five homosocial attitudes. For men, levels of INT, SIM, DC, and RD received from same-gender networks were regressed separately onto the three homosocial attitudes. One-tailed tests of significance also were performed on the bivariate correlations between each predictor variable and each dependent variable (see Tables 2 and 3). For women, two of the multiple Rs were significant at the required alpha level (.0025): with Intimacy as the dependent variable, R = .38, F(5,170) = 5.67, p < .001; with Respect for Differences as the dependent variable, R = .40, F (5,169) = 6.32, p < .001. The multiple R for Defiance of Convention as the dependent variable just missed significance [R = .32, F(5,170) = 3.79, p < .005]. Despite these two significant multiple Rs and one nearly significant multiple R, none of the five beta weights following each multiple R was significant at the required alpha level. For women, many of the bivariate correlations between the predictor variables and the dependent variables were significant at the required alpha level. For Intimacy received from same-gender (SG) networks as the dependent variable, three bivariate correlations were significant in the hypothesized direction at the required alpha level: for Cross-Gender Preference (CGP)/SG INT, r = -.25, p < .001; for Valuing (VAL)/SG INT, r = .34, p < .001; for Identification (ID)/SG INT, r = .27, p < .001. When Similarity with same-gender networks was the dependent variable, none of the bivariate correlations was significant at the required alpha. For Defiance of Convention with same-gender networks as the dependent variable, one bivariate correlation was significant in the hypothesized direction at the required alpha level (for SGP/SG DC, r = .24, p = .001). Finally, when Respect for Differences from same-gender networks was the dependent variable, three of the bivariate correlations were significant in the hypothesized direction at the required alpha level (for CGP/SG RD, r = -.35, p < .001; for VAL/SG RD, r = .26, p < .001; for JEAL/SG RD, r = -.22, p < .0025). 139 None of the four multiple Rs computed for men and none of the three beta weights following each multiple R was significant at the required alpha level of .0025. Only one of the bivariate correlations between the predictor variables and the dependent variables was significant in the hypothesized direction at the required alpha level: with Respect for Differences from same-gender networks (SG RD) as the dependent variable, the bivariate correlation between Cross-Gender Preference and SG RD was -.28 (p < .001). In summary, these results partially supported the relationship provisions portion of Hypothesis 3. For women's same-gender relationships, significant relationships were found between the five homosocial attitudes in combination and the relationship provisions of Intimacy and Respect for Differences. None of the five homosocial attitudes had significant beta weights following these significant multiple Rs, most probably due to the shared variance of the five homosocial attitudes. When the bivariate correlations between each homosocial attitude and each of the four relationship provisions were tested for significance separately, many significant relationships were found and all were significant in the hypothesized direction. The homosocial attitudes that were the best predictors varied according to the relationship provision. Women respondents who reported low levels of Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Valuing and Identification received significantly higher levels of Intimacy from same-gender networks than women respondents who reported high levels of Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Valuing and Identification. Women respondents who reported low levels of Jealousy and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Valuing received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from same-gender networks than women respondents who reported high levels of Jealousy and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Valuing. Women respondents who reported high levels of Same-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of Defiance of Convention from same-gender networks than women respondents who reported low levels of Same-Gender Preference. No significant bivariate relationships were found (at the required alpha level of .0025) between homosocial attitudes and the relationship provision of Similarity. 140 For men's same-gender relationships, no significant relationships were found at the required alpha level between the three homosocial attitudes in combination and each of the four relationship provisions, and only one of the bivariate correlations was significant. For men, then, only one part of the relationship provisions portion of Hypothesis 3 was supported: men respondents who reported low levels of Cross-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from same-gender networks than did men respondents who reported high levels of Cross-Gender Preference. Hypothesis 4. Respondents who report high levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing will receive significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions from cross-gender networks than will respondents who report low levels of Jealousy (women only) and Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Identification (women only), Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing. Results for supportive (mentoring) behaviours. Standard multiple regression analyses were performed separately for women and men. For women, the TSBS for cross-gender (CG) networks was regressed onto the five homosocial attitudes; for men, the TSBS for cross-gender (CG) networks was regressed onto the three homosocial attitudes. As well, one-tailed tests of significance were performed on the bivariate correlations between each of the homosocial attitudes (predictor variables) and each dependent variable (see Tables 2 and 3). For women, significance at the desired alpha level (.0025) was not attained for the multiple R or for any of the five beta weights. Only one of the five bivariate correlations between each of the five homosocial attitudes and the TSBS for cross-gender networks was significant at the required alpha level (for CGP/CG TSBS, r = .20, p < .0025). 141 For men, significance was not attained at the desired alpha level (.0025) for the multiple R, the three beta weights, or the three bivariate correlations between each of the three homosocial attitudes and the TSBS for cross-gender networks. In summary, the supportive (mentoring) behaviours portion of Hypothesis 4 was partially supported by the results for women and not supported by the results for men. The one significant (at the .0025 alpha level) bivariate correlation (for women's CGP/CG TSBS) provided support for one portion of Hypothesis 4: women respondents who reported high levels of Cross-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours from cross-gender networks than women respondents who reported low levels of Cross-Gender Preference. For women, significant relationships were not found between the homosocial attitudes of Same-Gender Preference, Valuing, Identification, and Jealousy and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from cross-gender networks. The results for men indicated that there was no significant relationship between homosocial attitudes and the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from cross-gender networks. Results for relationship provisions. Standard multiple regression analyses were performed separately for women and men. For women, levels of Intimacy (INT), Similarity (SIM), Defiance of Convention (DC), and Respect for Differences (RD) received from cross-gender (CG) networks were regressed separately onto the five homosocial attitudes. For men, levels of INT, SIM, DC, and RD received from cross-gender networks were regressed separately onto the three homosocial attitudes. In addition, one-tailed tests of significance were performed on the bivariate correlations between each homosocial attitude and each of the four relationship provisions (see Tables 2 and 3). For women, none of the four multiple Rs, the beta weights, or the bivariate correlations was significant at the required alpha level of .0025. For men, two of the multiple fls were significant at the required alpha level of .0025 [for Intimacy as the dependent variable, R = .45, F(3,83) = 7.08, p < .001; for Respect for Differences as the dependent variable, R = .43, F (3,83) = 6.41, p < .001]. Only one of the beta weights following 142 the significant multiple R for Intimacy was significant. However, ft was significant in the opposite direction to that hypothesized [the beta weight for VAL was .46, t (83) = 4.16, p < .001 ]. The bivariate correlation between VAL and CG INT also was significant in the opposite direction to that hypothesized (r = .40, p < .001). Neither of the remaining two bivariate correlations for Intimacy was significant at the required alpha level. One of the five beta weights following the significant multiple R for Respect for Differences was significant in the hypothesized direction at the required alpha level [the beta weight for SGP was -.37, t (83) = -3.34, p < .0025]. The bivariate correlation between SGP and CG RD also was significant in the hypothesized direction (for SGP/CG RD, r = -.34, p = .001). Neither of the remaining two bivariate correlations for Respect for Differences was significant at the required alpha level. None of the bivariate correlations for Similarity or Defiance of Convention was significant at the required alpha level. In summary, the relationship provisions portion of Hypothesis 4 was not supported by the results for women and was partially supported by the results for men. For women, no significant relationship was found between homosocial attitudes and the relationship provisions of cross-gender networks (significance tests evaluated at alpha = .0025). For men, significant relationships were found (at alpha = .0025) between the three homosocial attitudes in combination and each of the relationship provisions of Intimacy and Respect for Differences from cross-gender networks. However, the only significant beta weight (for Valuing) after the significant multiple R for Intimacy was significant in the opposite direction to that hypothesized (the bivariate correlation for VAL/CG INT also was significant in the opposite direction that hypothesized). The significant beta weight for SGP after the significant multiple R for Respect for Differences, and the significant bivariate correlation for SGP/CG RD, were the only results significant in the hypothesized direction at the required alpha level for men. The results, then, supported only the following portion of Hypothesis 4: men respondents who reported low levels of Same-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from cross-gender networks than men respondents who reported high levels of Same-Gender Preference. 143 3. Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? The statistical analyses and results for the hypotheses associated with the supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions portions of Research Question 3 are presented separately, beginning with the hypotheses associated with supportive (mentoring) behaviours. Because two different sets of analyses were performed (a 2 x 2 ANOVA for the hypotheses regarding supportive behaviours and a 2 x 2 MANOVA for the hypotheses regarding relationship provisions), the alpha for tests of significance was set at .025 for all analyses associated with Research Question 3. Methods of Statistical Analysis for Hypotheses Regarding Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours In order to evaluate Hypotheses 5 to 7, a 2 x 2 between-within univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network) was performed on the Total Supportive Behaviour Scores (TSBS) obtained on the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure (Schroeder, 1988/1989). Significant main effects were obtained for gender of respondent [F(1,331) = 8.77, p < .005] and for gender composition of network [F(1,331) = 23.78, p < .001]. A significant interaction effect also was obtained [F(1,331) = 15.62, p < .001]. Hypotheses Regarding Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Hypothesis 5. Same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than will cross-gender networks. While the results of the ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for gender composition of network, a significant interaction effect also was obtained (see Figure 7). The results of simple main 144 90 Figure 7. Graphic presentation of 2 x 2 between-within ANOVA with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network) performed on Total Supportive Behaviour Scores. 145 effects analysis (Winer, 1971) of the significant interaction indicated that the main effect for gender composition was attributable to the results for the men. The men's mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score was significantly higher for their same-gender networks (M = 83.19, SD = 34.04, n = 131) than for their cross-gender networks {M = 65.78, SD = 37.33, n = 131), F(1,331) = 32.12, p < .001. There was no significant difference in the mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score for the same-gender networks of women (M = 85.38, SD = 33.78, n = 202) and the cross-gender networks of women (M = 83.56, SD = 34.64, n = 202), F(1,331) < 1, p > .05. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported only by the results for men: men's same-gender networks provided significantly higher mean levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than men's cross-gender networks. No significant difference was found in the mean levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours provided by women's same- and cross-gender networks. Hypothesis 6. In partial opposition to Hypothesis 5, it is predicted that women's cross-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than will women's same-gender networks. As reported in the results for Hypothesis 5, the significant main effect for gender composition of network was attributable only to the results for men. See Figure 7 for a graphic presentation of the ANOVA results. Simple main effects analysis of the significant interaction effect (Gender x Gender Composition of Network) indicated that there was no significant difference in the mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score for the same-gender networks of women (M = 85.38, SD = 33.78, n = 202) and the cross-gender networks of women (M = 83.56, SD = 34.64, n = 202), F(1,331) < 1,p > .05. Hence, Hypothesis 6 was not supported: women's cross-gender networks did not provide significantly higher mean levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than women's same-gender networks. 146 Hypothesis 7. Men's same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than will women's same-gender networks. While the results of the ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for gender, the significant interaction effect made these results difficult to interpret. See Figure 7 for a graphic presentation of the ANOVA. Simple main effects analysis of the significant interaction indicated the main effect for gender was attributable to the results for cross-gender relationships only. The women's mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score for cross-gender relationships {M = 83.56, SD = 34.64, n = 202) was significantly higher than the men's mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score for cross-gender relationships (M = 65.78, SD = 37:33, n = 131), F(1,534) = 20.72, p < .001. There was no significant difference between the women's mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score for same-gender relationships (M = 85.38, SD = 33.78, n = 202) and the men's mean Total Supportive Behaviour Score for same-gender networks (M = 83.19, SD = 34.04, n = 131), F(1,534) < 1,p > .05. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was not supported: men's same-gender networks did not provide significantly higher mean levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than women's same-gender networks. Methods of Statistical Analysis for Hypotheses Regarding Relationship Provisions Hypotheses 8 to 10 (regarding relationship provisions) were evaluated by performing a 2 x 2 between-within multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network) on the scores obtained on each of the four relationship provision subscales (Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences). (A listing of the exact items used to compute scores on each of these four subscales is contained in Appendix C [Preliminary Analyses], where the results of the factor analyses of the relationship provisions data collected for the current study are presented.) The results of the MANOVA (using Pillai's trace, Wilks' lambda, and Hotelling's trace criteria) indicated significant main effects for gender [F(4,191) = 3.69, p < .01] and gender composition of 147 network [F(4,191) = 8.45, p < .001]. The MANOVA results also indicated a significant interaction effect [F(4,191) = 5.62, p < .001]. Because significant multivariate differences were found, the MANOVA was followed with four 2 x 2 between-within univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network). One univariate ANOVA was performed for each of the four relationship provisions (Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences). One significant interaction effect (for Intimacy) was analyzed using simple main effects analysis (Winer, 1971). Hypotheses Regarding Relationship Provisions Hypothesis 8. The same-gender networks of women and the cross-gender networks of men will provide significantly higher levels of Intimacy and Emotional Support than will the same-gender networks of men and the cross-gender networks of women. The predictions in Hypothesis 8 regarding Emotional Support could not be evaluated because the Emotional Support factor was not supported by the factor analyses of the Close Social Relationships Scale items (Woolsey et al., 1988b) conducted with the data collected for the current study (see Appendix C). The results of the 2 x 2 ANOVA performed on the scores obtained on the Intimacy subscale indicated a significant main effect for gender [F(1,194) = 14.66,p < .001] but not for gender composition [F(1,194) = 3.00, p > .05]. A significant interaction effect also was indicated [F(1,194) = 16.16, p < .001]. The results of the ANOVA are presented graphically in Figure 8. When the significant interaction was analyzed by simple main effects analysis, the results indicated that the mean Intimacy score for women's same-gender networks {M = 31.48, SD = 7.00, n = 122) was significantly higher than the mean Intimacy score for men's same-gender networks (M = 25.58, SD = 7.31, n = 74), F(1,320) = 28.72, p < .001, and that the mean Intimacy score for women's same-gender networks {M = 31.48, SD = 7.00, n = 122) was significantly higher than the mean Intimacy score for women's cross-gender networks {M = 28.19, SD = 8.05, n = 122), F(1,194) = 21.93, 148 Figure 8. Graphic presentation of 2 x 2 between-within ANOVA with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network) performed on Intimacy scores. 149 p < .001. No significant differences were found between the mean Intimacy scores for men's same-gender networks (M = 25.58, SD = 7.31, n = 74) and men's cross-gender networks {M = 26.89, SD = 7.39, n = 74), F(1,194) = 2.10, p > .05, or between the mean Intimacy scores for women's cross-gender networks (M = 28.19, SD = 8.05, n = 122) and men's cross-gender networks (M = 26.89, SD = 7.39, n = 74),F(1,320) = 1.41, p > .05. Hypothesis 8, then, was partially supported: the same-gender networks of women provided significantly higher mean levels of Intimacy than the same-gender networks of men and the cross-gender networks of women; no significant differences were found between the mean levels of Intimacy provided by men's same- and cross-gender networks or between women's and men's cross-gender networks. Hypothesis 9. Men's same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences than will women's same-gender networks. The results of the 2 x 2 between-within ANOVA performed on the Respect for Differences scores (see Table 4) indicated that there were no significant main effects for gender of respondent [F(1,194) = 2.23, p > .05] or gender composition of network [F(1,194) = 1.23, p > .05]. The interaction effect was not significant either [F(1,194) < 1, p > .05]. Hence, Hypothesis 9 was not supported: there was no significant difference between the mean levels of Respect for Differences provided by the same-gender networks of men (M = 23.80, SD = 2.91, n = 74) and women (M = 24.43, SD = 3.03, n = 122). Hypothesis 10. The same-gender networks of both women and men will provide significantly higher levels of Similarity than will the cross-gender networks of women and men. The 2 x 2 between-within ANOVA performed on the Similarity scores (see Table 4) resulted in a significant main effect for gender composition of network [F(1,194) = 23.94, p < .001] but not for gender of respondent [F(1,194) = 2.46, p > .05]. The interaction effect was not significant 150 Table 4 Results of 2x2 ANOVAs Performed on Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios Gender composition of network (GC) Gender of respondent Same-gender Cross-gender Row mean (G) Similarity Women 35.93 (n = 122) 32.88 (n = 122) 34.40 (n = 244) Men 33.83 (n = 74) 31.44 (n = 74) 32.64 (n = 148) Column mean 35.14 (n = 196) 32.34 (n = 196) F-ratios: G (1,194) = 2.46; GC(1,194) = 23.94*; G x GC(1,194) < 1 Defiance of Convention Women 24.41 (n = 122) 21.58 (n = 122) 23.00 (n = 244) Men 21.89 (n = 74) 20.42 (n = 74) 21.16 (n = 148) Column mean 23.46 (n = 196) 21.14 (n = 196) F-ratios: G (1,194) = 2.93; GC(1,194) = 18.94*; G x GC(1,194) = 1.88 Respect for Differences Women 24.43 (n = 122) 24.20 (n = 122) 24,32 (n = 244) Men 23.80 (n = 74) 23.61 (n = 74) 23.71 (n = 148) Column mean 24.20 (n = 196) 23.98 (n = 196) F-ratios: G (1,194) = 2.23; GC(1,194) = 1.23; G x GC(1,194) < 1 Note. The results presented above are for three 2 x 2 between-within ANOVAs, each with one between subjects factor (gender of respondent) and one within subjects factor (gender composition of network); one ANOVA was performed on the scores for each of the three relationship provisions listed above (Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Respect for Differences). *p < .001. 151 [F(1,194) < 1,p > .05]. Thus, Hypothesis 10 was fully supported by the results. The mean level of Similarity provided by same-gender networks (M = 35.14, SD = 8.53, n = 196) was significantly higher than the mean level of Similarity provided by cross-gender networks (M = 32.34, SD = 8.59, n = 196). Hypothesis 11. Men's same-gender networks will provide significantly higher levels of Lifetime Attachment than will women's same-gender networks. Hypothesis 12. In opposition to Hypothesis 11, it is predicted that there will be no significant difference in the levels of Lifetime Attachment provided by women's and men's same-gender networks. Hypothesis 13. The same-gender networks of women and men will provide significantly higher levels of Lifetime Attachment than will the cross-gender networks of women and men. Hypothesis 11 to 13 could not be evaluated because the Lifetime Attachment factor was not supported by the factor analyses of the Close Social Relationships Scale items (Woolsey et al., 1988b) conducted with the data collected for the present study (see Appendix C). Finally, while no predictions were made about the mean scores on Defiance of Convention, the ANOVA results for that scale are presented here (see Table 4). The ANOVA results indicated a significant main effect for gender composition of network [F(1,194) = 18.94,p < .001] but not for gender of respondent [F(1,194) = 2.93, p > .05]. The interaction effect was not significant [F(1,194) = 1.88, p > .05]. Hence, the results indicated that the mean level of Defiance of Convention provided by same-gender networks (M = 23.46, SD = 8.18, n = 196) was significantly higher than the mean level of Defiance of Convention provided by cross-gender networks (M = 21.14, SD = 7.94, n = 196). 152 4. Research Question 4: How do homosocial attitudes In interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? Methods of Statistical Analysis The two hypotheses associated with Research Question 4 were written to address preferences for and mentoring activities of same-gender networks (Hypothesis 14) and preferences for and mentoring activities of cross-gender networks (Hypothesis 15). In order to evaluate Hypothesis 14, two 2 x 2 MANOVAs (one for women, one for men) with two within subjects factors (Level of Mentoring Received from Same-Gender Networks x Level of Same-Gender Preference [low and high scores on the Same-Gender Preference Composite]) were performed on the factor scores obtained on the three career- and job-related outcomes (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). The methods of deriving scores for each of the independent and dependent variables associated with Research Question 4 are described in Appendix C (Preliminary Analyses) (see Appendix C, Section A: Results of the Preliminary Analyses). The scores for one woman respondent and one man respondent were excluded from the analyses conducted to evaluate Hypotheses 14 because each of these respondents had outlying scores (greater than 4.5 standard deviations above the mean) on the Advancement Outcomes factor. Scores on the independent variables were dichotomized at the median for each variable in preparation for the Hypothesis 14 MANOVAs. In order to perform orthogonal analyses, cases were randomly deleted from cells with larger ns: 26 cases were dropped from the women's MANOVA and 26 cases were dropped from the men's MANOVA. After these cases were dropped, each of the cells for the women's MANOVA contained scores for 44 respondents (n for entire sample or all four cells = 176) and each of the four cells for the men's MANOVA contained scores for 33 respondents (n for entire sample = 132). The results of these MANOVAs and of the three univariate ANOVAs that were performed to follow up the significant MANOVAs are presented after the statement of Hypothesis 14. 153 In order to test Hypothesis 15, two 2 x 2 MANOVAs (one for women, one for men) with two within subjects factors (Level of Mentoring Received From Cross-Gender Networks x Level of Cross-Gender Preference [low and high scores on the Cross-Gender Preference Composite]) were performed on the factor scores obtained on the three career- and job-related outcomes (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). As with the analyses conducted to evaluate Hypothesis 14, the scores for one woman respondent and one man respondent were excluded from the Hypothesis 15 MANOVAs because both respondents had outlying scores on the Advancement Outcomes factor. Scores on the independent variables were dichotomized at the median for each variable in preparation for the Hypothesis 15 MANOVAs. Then, in order to perform orthogonal analyses, cases were randomly deleted from cells with larger ns: 41 cases were dropped from the women's MANOVA and 7 cases were dropped from the men's MANOVA. These random deletions resulted in cell sizes of 41 for the women's MANOVA (n for entire sample or all four cells = 164) and 37 for the men's MANOVA (n for entire sample or all four cells = 148). The results of these MANOVAs and of the three ANOVAs that were performed after the significant MANOVA for women are discussed after Hypothesis 15 is stated. Because a total of four MANOVAs were performed (two for Hypothesis 14, two for Hypotheses 15), alpha for all tests of significance associated with Research Question 4 was set at .0125. Hypotheses Hypothesis 14. Respondents with high scores on the Same-Gender Preference Composite who receive high levels of mentoring from same-gender networks will have significantly higher levels of Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes than respondents with high scores on the Same-Gender Preference Composite who receive low levels of mentoring from same-gender networks. 154 The women's 2 x 2 MANOVA resulted in a significant main effect for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks [F(3,170) = 7.78, p < .001] but not for level of same-gender preference [F(3,170) = 1.34, p > .05]. The interaction effect was not significant [F (3,170) < 1,p > .05]. The same pattern of results was achieved for the men's MANOVA: a significant main effect was obtained for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks [F (3,126) = 7.66, p < .001] but not for level of same-gender preference [F (3,126) < 1, p > .05]; the interaction effect was not significant [F (3,126) < 1,p > .05]. All F values and levels of significance reported for the MANOVAs are for Pillai's trace, Wilks' lambda, and Hotelling's trace criteria. To follow up the significant multivariate results, one 2 x 2 univariate ANOVA was performed for each gender on the scores for each of the dependent variables (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). See Table 5 for the women's results and Table 6 for the men's results. The results indicated that, for women, the significant main effect for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks held only for one dependent variable (Skill Development Outcomes) [F (1,172) = 22.19,p < .001]. Nonsignificant (at the required alpha level of .0125) main effects for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks were obtained for Affective Outcomes [F (1,172) = 3.33, p > .05] and Advancement Outcomes [F (1,172) = 4.14, p < .05]. The univariate results for men indicated that the significant main effect for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks held for two dependent variables [Skill Development Outcomes, F (1,128) = 18.88, p < .001; Affective Outcomes, F (1,128) = 14.68, p < .001]. A nonsignificant main effect for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks was obtained for Advancement Outcomes [F (1,128) = 1.50, p > .05]. In summary, the significant interaction effect predicted in Hypothesis 14 was not supported by the results for women or men. The Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes were not significantly affected by the interaction of same-gender preference with level of mentoring received from same-gender networks. Significant main effects were obtained, though, for level of mentoring received from same-gender networks (significant multivariate main effect for both women and men; significant univariate main effect for women's Skill Development Outcomes and for men's 155 Table 5 Results of 2x2 ANOVAs With Same-Gender IVs Performed on Career- and Job-Related Outcome Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios (Women) Level of Same-Gender Preference (SGP) Level of Mentoring Received from Same-Gender Networks (LMSG) High (> 50.30) Low (< 50.30) Row mean Affective Outcomes High (> 84.00) 50.33 (n = 44) 52.31 (n = 44) 51.32 (n = 88) Low (< 84.00) 47.99 (n = 44) 49.07 (n = 44) 48.53 (n = 88) Column mean 49.16 (n = 88) 50.69 (n = 88) F-ratios: LMSG (1,172) = 3.33; SGP (1,172) = 1.01; LMSG x SGP (1,172) < 1 Advancement Outcomes High (> 84.00) 51.17 (n = 44) 51.51 (n = 44) 51.34 (n = 88) Low (< 84.00) 46.99 (n = 44) 50.01 (n = 44) 48.50 (n = 88) Column mean 49.08 (n = 88) 50.76 (n = 88) F-ratios: LMSG (1,172) = 4.14*; SGP (1,172) = 1.45; LMSG x SGP (1,172) < 1 Skill Development Outcomes High (> 84.00) 54.37 (n = 44) 52.46 (n = 44) 53.41 (n = 88) Low (< 84.00) 46.20 (n = 44) 46.72 (n = 44) 46.46 (n = 88) Column mean 50.28 (n = 88) 49.59 (n = 88) F-ratios: LMSG (1,172) = 22.19**; SGP (1,172) < 1; LMSG x SGP (1,172) < 1 Note. The results reported above are for three 2 x 2 ANOVAs with two within subjects factors (Level of Mentoring Received From Same-Gender Networks x Level of Same-Gender Preference) performed on the factor scores obtained by women on the three career- and job-related outcomes (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0125 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with two asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p < .001. 156 Table 6 Results of 2x2 ANOVAs With Same-Gender IVs Performed on Career- and Job-Related Outcome Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios (Men) Level of Same-Gender Preference (SGP) Level of Mentoring Received from Same-Gender Networks (LMSG) High (> 51.09) Low (< 51.09) Row mean Affective Outcomes High (> 85.50) 52.93 (n = 33) 54.04 (n = 33) 53.49 (n = 66) Low (< 85.50) 46.08 (n = 33) 48.58 (n = 33) 47.33 {n = 66) Column mean 49.51 (n = 66) 51.31 (n = 66) F-ratios: LMSG (1,128) = 14.68*; SGP (1,128) = 1.26; LMSG x SGP (1,128) < 1 Advancement Outcomes High (> 85.50) 50.94 (n = 33) 51.51 (n = 33) 51.23 (n = 66) Low (< 85.50) 49.21 (n = 33) 49.25 (n = 33) 49.23 (n = 66) Column mean 50.08 (n = 66) 50.38 (n = 66) F-ratios: LMSG (1,128) = 1.50; SGP (1,128) < 1; LMSG x SGP (1,128) < 1 Skill Development Outcomes High (> 85.50) 53.96 (n = 33) 52.93 (n = 33) 53.45 (n = 66) Low (< 85.50) 44.98 (n = 33) 47.80 (n = 33) 46.39 (n = 66) Column mean 49.47 (n = 66) 50.37 (n = 66) F-ratios: LMSG (1,128) = 18.88*; SGP (1,128) < 1; LMSG x SGP (1,128) = 1.40 Note. The results reported above are for three 2 x 2 ANOVAs with two within subjects factors (Level of Mentoring Received From Same-Gender Networks x Level of Same-Gender Preference) performed on the factor scores obtained by men on the three career- and job-related outcomes (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). The alpha for tests of significance was set at .0125 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure. *p < .001. 157 Skill Development and Affective Outcomes). The mean Skill Development Outcomes score was significantly higher for women respondents who received high levels of mentoring from same-gender networks (M = 53.41) than for women who received low levels of mentoring from same-gender networks (M = 46.46). The mean Skill Development Outcomes score and the mean Affective Outcomes score were significantly higher for men who received high levels of mentoring from same-gender networks (M = 53.45 and M = 53.49, respectively) than for men who received low levels of mentoring from same-gender networks (M = 46.39 and M = 47.33, respectively). Women's and men's Advancement Outcomes and women's Affective Outcomes were not significantly affected by the level of mentoring received from same-gender networks. Hypothesis 15. Respondents with high scores on the Cross-Gender Preference Composite who receive high levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks will have significantly higher levels of Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes than respondents with high scores on the Cross-Gender Preference Composite who receive low levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks. The results of the women's 2x2 MANOVA indicated a significant main effect for level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks [F (3,158) = 7.99, p < .001] but not for level of cross-gender preference [F 3,158) < 1, p > .05]. The interaction effect was not significant [F (3,158) < 1, p > .05]. For men, the MANOVA results indicated nonsignificant main effects for level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks [F (3,142) = 2.12, p > .05] and for level of cross-gender preference [F (3,142) < 1, p > .05]. The interaction effect was nonsignificant as well [F (3,142) < 1, p > .05]. All F values and levels of significance reported for the MANOVAs are for Pillai's trace, Wilks' lambda, and Hotelling's trace criteria. The significant multivariate results for women were followed up by three 2 x 2 univariate ANOVAs (one for each of the dependent variables: Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes; see Table 7). The univariate results indicated significant main effects for level of 158 Table 7 Results of 2x2 ANOVAs With Cross-Gender IVs Performed on Career- and Job-Related Outcome Scores: Mean Scores and F-ratios (Women) Level of Cross-Gender Preference (CGP) Level of Mentoring Received from Cross-Gender Networks (LMCG) High (> 49.32) Low (< 49.32) Row mean Affective Outcomes High (> 84.00) 51.26 (n = 41) 53.70 (n = 41) 52.48 (n = 82) Low (< 84.00) 48.23 (n = 41) 47.68 (n = 41) 47.95 (n = 82) Column mean 49.74 (n = 82) 50.69 (n = 82) F-ratios: LMCG (1,160) = 8.18*; CGP (1,160) < 1; LMCG x CGP (1,160) < 1 Advancement Outcomes High (> 84.00) 51.21 (n = 41) 50.55 (n = 41) 50.88 (n = 82) Low (< 84.00) 50.19 (n = 41) 47.79 (n = 41) 48.99 (n = 82) Column mean 50.70 (n = 82) 49.17 (n = 82) F-ratios: LMCG (1,160) = 1.78; CGP (1,160) = 1.16; LMCG x CGP (1,160) < 1 Skill Development Outcomes High (> 84.00) 53.07 (n = 41) 54.80 (n = 41) 53.94 (n = 82) Low (< 84.00) 47.21 (n = 41) 47.10 (n = 41) 47.15 (n = 82) Column mean 50.14 (n = 82) 50.95 (n = 82) F-ratios: LMCG (1,160) = 22.69**; CGP (1,160) < 1; LMCG x CGP (1,160) < 1 Note. The results reported above are for three 2 x 2 ANOVAs with two within subjects factors (Level of Mentoring Received from Cross-Gender Networks x Level of Cross-Gender Preference) performed on the factor scores obtained by women on the three career- and job-related outcomes (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). The alpha for tests of significance was set at .0125 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure. *p< .005. **p < .001. 159 mentoring received from cross-gender networks for two of the dependent variables: Skill Development Outcomes [F (1,160) = 22.69, p < .001] and Affective Outcomes [F (1,160) = 8.18, p = .005]. A nonsignificant main effect for level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks was obtained for Advancement Outcomes [F (1,160) = 1.78, p > .05]. Because no significant main or interaction effects were obtained in the MANOVA performed on the men's data, no follow-up ANOVAs were conducted. However, a sample 2 x 2 ANOVA setup is provided (see Table 8) so that the medians, means, and cell sizes can be compared with the results presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7. In summary, the interaction predicted in Hypothesis 15 was not supported by the results for women or men. The three career- and job-related outcomes were not significantly affected by the interaction of cross-gender preference and level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks. However, significant main effects were obtained for level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks (significant multivariate main effect for women; significant univariate main effect for women's Skill Development and Affective Outcomes), indicating that, for women, two of the outcomes were significantly affected by the level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks, regardless of cross-gender preference. Women respondents who received high levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks had significantly higher mean scores on Skill Development and Affective Outcomes (M = 53.94 and M = 52.48, respectively) than women respondents who received low levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks (M = 47.15 and M = 47.95, respectively). No significant effects were obtained for men or for women's Advancement Outcomes. 160 Table 8 Setup for 2x2 ANOVAs With Cross-Gender IVs: Cell Sizes and Mean Scores for Three Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables (Men) Level of Cross-Gender Preference (CGP) Level of Mentoring Received from Cross-Gender Networks (LMCG) High (> 49.10) Low (< 49.10) Row mean Affective Outcomes High (> 38.00) 47.83 (n = 37) 51.65 (n = 37) 49.74 (n = 74) Low (< 38.00) 49.48 (n = 37) 50.32 (n = 37) 49.90 (n = 74) Column mean 48.65 (n = 74) 50.99 (n = 74) Advancement Outcomes High (> 38.00) 49.92 (n = 37) 52.43 (n = 37) 51.17 (n = 74) Low ( < 38.00) 49.27 (n = 37) 48.70 (n = 37) 48.98 (n = 74) Column mean 49.59 (n = 74) 50.57 (n = 74) Skill Development Outcomes High (> 38.00) 50.74 (n = 37) 51.75 (n = 37) 51.24 (n = 74) Low ( < 38.00) 47.59 (n = 37) 49.41 (n = 37) 48.50 (n = 74) Column mean 49.16 (n = 74) 50.58 (n = 74) Note. Because the results of the men's 2x2 MANOVA with two within subjects factors [Level of Mentoring Received From Cross-Gender Networks (LMCG) x Level of Cross-Gender Preference (CGP)] indicated nonsignificant main effects [for LMCG, F (3.142) = 2.12, p > .05; for CGP, F (3, 142) < 1, p > .05] and nonsignificant interaction effects [for LMCG x CGP, F (3,142) < 1, p > .05], follow-up univariate ANOVAs were not performed. However, the setup for three 2 x 2 ANOVAs is provided above so that the means and cell sizes can be compared with the results in Tables 5, 6, and 7. 161 5. Research Question 5: How do levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career-and job-related outcomes? Methods of Statistical Analysis Several methods of statistical analysis were utilized in the evaluation of the two hypotheses associated with Research Question 5. First, standard multiple regression was performed to determine whether scores on three career- and job-related outcome factors (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes) could be predicted from Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Scores (TSBS) and scores on each of the four relationship provisions scales (Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences). As with the analyses conducted in order to evaluate Hypothesis 14 and 15, the scores for one woman respondent and one man respondent were excluded from the hypothesis-testing analyses for Hypotheses 16 and 17 because each of these respondents had outlying scores (greater than 4.5 standard deviations above the mean) on the Advancement Outcomes factor. Each career- and job-related outcome was regressed separately onto the five predictor variables; separate analyses were conducted for women and men and for the provisions of same- and cross-gender networks. Hence, the total number of regression analyses performed for Research Question 5 was 12. To counteract the increased risk of Type I error that resulted from this large number of analyses, alpha for all tests of significance associated with Research Question 5 was set at .0042 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure. As a second method of assessing the relationships between the predictor and dependent variables, one-tailed tests of significance were performed on the bivariate correlations between each predictor variable and each of the three career- and job-related outcome variables. Additional tests of significance used in the evaluation of the final hypothesis (Hypothesis 17) are described along with the presentation of the results for that hypothesis. 162 Hypotheses Hypothesis 16. For both women and men, there will be significant positive relationships between the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from any source (same- or cross-gender network) and Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes. Factor scores on the Affective, Advancement/and Skill Development Outcomes were regressed separately (using standard multiple regression) onto the five predictor variables (Total Supportive [Mentoring] Behaviour Score [TSBS] and scores on each of the four relationship provisions subscales). Separate regression analyses were performed for women and men and for the provisions of same- and cross-gender networks. In addition, one-tailed tests of significance were performed on the bivariate correlations between each predictor variable and each of the three career- and job-related outcome variables. The results for the standard multiple regression analyses are presented in Table 9 (women's results) and Table 10 (men's results). The results of the tests of significance on the bivariate correlations are presented in Table 11 (women's results) and Table 12 (men's results). For women, significance at the required alpha level of .0042 was attained only for the regression analyses involving Skill Development Outcomes. Skill Development factor scores regressed onto Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Scores (TSBS) and relationship provisions received from both same- and cross-gender networks resulted in significant multiple Rs (see Table 9). Following these significant multiple Rs, significant beta weights were attained for TSBS and Similarity (received from same-gender networks) and for TSBS (received from cross-gender networks). Four bivariate correlations were significant at the required alpha level of .0042 (those for same-gender TSBS/Skill Development, same-gender Intimacy/Skill Development, same-gender Similarity/Skill Development, and cross-gender TSBS/Skill Development; see Table 11). For men, significance at the required alpha level of .0042 was attained for some of the analyses involving all three of the career- and job-related outcomes. Significant multiple Rs were 163 Table 9 Standard Multiple Regression Results for Three Career-.and Job-Related Outcomes Regressed Separately Onto Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions (Women) Affective Advancement Skill Development Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes Same-gender networks (n = 160) Multiple R (and R2) .31 (.09)** .23 (.05) .48 (.23)***** Beta weights TSBS .21* .17 gg***** Intimacy -.04 -.11 .09 Similarity .20* .13 25** DefCon - .30**** -.05 -.16 RespDiff -.05 -.10 -.09 Cross-gender networks (n = 141) Multiple R (and R2) .27 (.07) .17 (.03) .40 (.16)***** Beta weights TSBS .21* .16 37***** Intimacy -.15 -.03 -.15 Similarity .00 -.01 .11 DefCon -.09 .06 -.04 RespDiff .14 -.03 .12 Note. TSBS = Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score; DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0042 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with four or more asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p<.01. ***p < .005. ****p < .0042. *****p < .001. 164 Table 10 Standard Multiple Regression Results for Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes Regressed Separately Onto Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions (Men) Affective Outcomes Advancement Outcomes Skill Development Outcomes Multiple R (and R' Beta weights TSBS Intimacy Similarity DefCon RespDiff Same-gender networks (n = 138) .45 (.21)***** .29 (.08)* 22***** .14 .11 .28* .15 .23* -.17 -.19 .04 .09 .41 (.17)** 24***** .17 .08 .14 .02 Cross-gender networks (n = 80) Multiple R (and R^) .35 (.12) .46 (.21)**** .45 (.20)*** Beta weights TSBS .23 40***** .31** Intimacy .01 -.20 .04 Similarity .11 -.11 .18 DefCon -.06 -.06 -.06 RespDiff .15 .20 .13 Note. TSBS = Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score; DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0042 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with four or more asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005. ****p < .0042. *****p < .001. 165 Table 11 Bivariate Correlations Between Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received From Same- and Cross-Gender Networks and Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes (Women) Predictor variable Outcome variable TSBS Intimacy Similarity DefCon RespDiff Same-gender networks (n = 160) Affective .13 -.03 .09 -.15* -.04 Advancement .14* -.06 .10 .03 -.09 Skill Development .41*** .22** .30*** .12 .05 Cross-gender networks (n = 141) Affective .18* -.10 -.03 -.10 .08 Advancement .16* .01 .03 .06 -.02 Skill Development .36*** -.02 .12 .01 .11 Note. TSBS = Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score; DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0042 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with two or more asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p < .0042. ***p < .001. 166 Table 12 Bivariate Correlations Between Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours and Relationship Provisions Received from Same- and Cross-Gender Networks and Three Career- and Job-Related Outcomes (Men) Predictor variable Outcome variable TSBS Intimacy Similarity DefCon RespDiff Same-gender networks (n = 138) Affective .37***** .22*** .17* .01 27***** Advancement .14 -.14 -.12 -.07 .08 Skill Development .37***** 24**** .21** .10 .15* Cross-gender networks (n = 80) Affective .30**** .11 .20* .06 .22* Advancement .36***** -.12 -.01 -.08 .19* Skill Development .39***** .16 .29**** .11 .24* Note. TSBS = Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score; DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. Probability levels of tests of significance are indicated down to the .05 level. However, because the alpha for tests of significance was set at .0042 using the Bonferroni inequality procedure, only those results marked with four or more asterisks reached the level of significance required for the current study. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p< .005. ****p< .0042. *****p< .001. 167 attained for Affective Outcomes regressed onto the provisions of same-gender networks, for Skill Development Outcomes regressed onto the provisions of same-gender networks, and for Advancement Outcomes regressed on to the provisions of cross-gender networks (see Table 10). In addition, the multiple R for Skill Development Outcomes regressed onto the provisions of cross-gender networks just missed significance at the required alpha level. Beta weights for the same one of the five predictor variables (TSBS) were significant at the required alpha level after each of the three significant multiple Rs. Four of the bivariate correlations between the provisions of same-gender (SG) networks and the three outcomes were significant at the required alpha level (see Table 12). These four significant correlations were for SG TSBS/Affective Outcomes, SG Respect for Differences/Affective Outcomes, SG TSBS/Skill Development Outcomes, and SG Intimacy/Skill Development Outcomes. The four significant bivariate correlations between the provisions of cross-gender (CG) networks and the career- and job-related outcomes were for CG TSBS/Affective Outcomes, CG TSBS/Advancement Outcomes, CG TSBS/Skill Development Outcomes, and CG Similarity/Skill Development Outcomes. In summary, Hypothesis 16 was partially supported by the results for both women and men. For women, significant positive relationships were found between Skill Development Outcomes and the five (mentoring and relationship) provisions in combination (for both same- and cross-gender networks). The significant beta weights for both same- and cross-gender TSBS and same-gender Similarity (following the significant multiple Rs for the standard multiple regressions involving Skill Development Outcomes), and the significant bivariate correlations for SG TSBS/Skill Development, SG Intimacy/Skill Development, SG Similarity/Skill Development, and CG TSBS/Skill Development indicated that when considering the provisions of same-gender networks, the best predictors of Skill Development Outcomes for women were TSBS, Intimacy, and Similarity. When considering the provisions of cross-gender networks, the best predictor of Skill Development Outcomes for women was TSBS. Significant relationships were not found between Affective and Advancement Outcomes and the mentoring and relationship provisions of women's same- and cross-gender networks. 168 For men, same-gender supportive (mentoring) behaviours (TSBS) and relationship provisions in combination were significantly related to Affective Outcomes and Skill Development Outcomes, and cross-gender supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions in combination were significantly related to Advancement Outcomes. The significant beta weights for TSBS following the three significant multiple Rs, and the eight significant bivariate correlations indicated that when considering the provisions of men's same-gender networks, the best predictors of Affective Outcomes were TSBS and Respect for Differences and the best predictors of Skill Development Outcomes were TSBS and Intimacy. When considering the provisions of men's cross-gender networks, the best predictor of Affective and Advancement Outcomes was TSBS, and the best predictors of Skill Development Outcomes were TSBS and Similarity. Hypothesis 17. For both women and men, the level of relationship provisions received from any source (same- or cross-gender network) will be significantly more strongly related to Affective Outcomes than to Advancement and Skill Development Outcomes. To evaluate this hypothesis, the bivariate correlations between each of the four relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks (Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences) and each of the career- and job-related outcomes were inspected visually to identify the pairs of correlations that were different in the direction hypothesized in Hypothesis 17 and for which the bivariate correlation for the relationship provision with Affective Outcomes was significant in its own right at the required alpha level of .0042 (see Tables 11 and 12). Two such pairs were identified for men: the bivariate correlations for SG RD/Affective Outcomes (r = .27, p < .001) versus SG RD/Advancement Outcomes (r = .08, p > .05) and the bivariate correlations for SG RD/Affective Outcomes (r = .27, p < .001) versus SG RD/Skill Development Outcomes (r = .15, p < .05). No pairs were identified for women. Differences between the correlation coefficients in each of the two pairs identified for men were tested for significance using a f-test for the differences between two dependent correlation coefficients (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). 169 Because two significance tests were done, alpha was set at .025 according to the Bonferroni inequality procedure. One-tailed tests of significance were used because of the directional nature of the hypothesized differences. For SG RD/Affective Outcomes versus SG RD/Advancement Outcomes, t(l35) = 1.91, p > .025; for SG RD/Affective Outcomes versus SG RD/Skill Development Outcomes, t(135) = 1.48, p > .05. Hypothesis 17, then, was not supported by the results for women or men. The relationship provisions supplied by same- and cross-gender networks were not significantly more strongly related to Affective Outcomes than to Advancement and Skill Development Outcomes. 170 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to investigate patterns and potential outcomes of homosociality within the organizational setting by: (a) examining the relationship between homosocial attitudes and network activities (Research Questions 1 and 2); (b) investigating gender differences in the supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions supplied by same-and cross-gender networks (i.e., studying the actual relationships aspect of homosociality) (Research Question 3); and (c) examining the relationship between homosocial attitudes and behaviours and indices of employee outcomes (i.e., career- and job-related outcomes) (Research Questions 4 and 5). Answers to each of the five research questions were provided by the results of statistical analyses conducted to test the hypotheses which corresponded to each research question. Three of the 17 hypotheses (Hypotheses 11,12, and 13) could not be tested because the factor (subscale) that was to have measured the variable of interest in these hypotheses (Lifetime Attachment) was not supported by the factor analyses conducted with the data gathered for the current study. Eight hypotheses (Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,10, and 16) were fully or partially supported by the results and six hypotheses (Hypotheses 6, 7, 9,14,15, and 17) were not supported. The results associated with each research question are discussed separately in this chapter after the statement of each question. The results of the analyses conducted to explore the factor structures of key variables utilized in the study (career- and job-related outcomes, homosocial attitudes, and relationship provisions) are discussed in Appendix C (Preliminary Analyses). The limitations of the study, the theoretical and practical implications, recommendations for future research, and conclusions are presented in this chapter after the discussion of the results related to each research question. 171 A. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS FOR EACH OF THE FIVE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Research Question 1: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the size of his or her same- and cross-gender networks? The two hypotheses associated with Research Question 1 were predictions that the five (for women) and three (for men) homosocial attitudes would be significantly related (in specified directions) to the sizes of respondents' same-gender (Hypothesis 1) and cross-gender (Hypothesis 2) networks. Both hypotheses were partially supported by the results for women (two of the five homosocial attitudes - Cross-Gender Preference and Valuing - were significantly related, in the hypothesized directions, to the size of same- or cross-gender networks and three of the five homosocial attitudes - Same-Gender Preference, Identification, and Jealousy -- were not significantly related to the size of women's same- and cross-gender networks). Neither of the hypotheses was supported by the results for men (none of three homosocial attitudes applicable to men was significantly related to the size of same- or cross-gender networks). For women, scores on Cross-Gender Preference predicted the sizes of both same- and cross-gender networks: women with low scores on Cross-Gender Preference had significantly larger same-gender networks than did women with high scores on Cross-Gender Preference; women with high scores on Cross-Gender Preference had significantly larger cross-gender networks than women who had low scores on Cross-Gender Preference. This finding indicates that women who expressed a strong preference for relationships with men sought work relationships with men in preference to work relationships with women (i.e., listed more men and fewer women in their networks than women with a low level of preference for relationships with men). In turn, women who expressed a low level of preference for relationships with men sought work relationships with women over work relationships with men (i.e., listed more women and fewer men in their networks than women who expressed a strong preference for relationships with men). Women's Valuing scores also were predictive of size of same-gender networks. Women with high scores on Valuing had significantly larger same-gender networks than women with low 172 scores on Valuing, indicating that women who value relationships with other women seek out more female relationships in the workplace than women who do not value relationships with other women. The results for women then, but not for men, lend support to and extend Lipman-Blumen's (1976) homosocial theory of sex roles. Lipman-Blumen defined homosociality as "the seeking, enjoyment, and /or preference for the company of the same sex" (p. 16). The results of the current study, though, indicate that not all women enjoy and seek relationships with other women: those women who do enjoy and value relationships with women seem to seek relationships with women to a greater extent than do those women who do not value (or have lower levels of Valuing) relationships with women. Some women prefer relationships with men over relationships with women, and those women who indicated a strong preference for relationships with men developed significantly more relationships with men and fewer relationships with women than women who indicated lower levels of preference for relationships with men. Given that the women's Cross-Gender Preference scale measures preferences for men over relationships with women, primarily in situations where the cross-gender persons (men) are higher in status, it makes sense that women seeking advancement in a traditionally male-dominated hierarchy would seek relationships with potentially more powerful (in terms of access to organizational resources) men in preference to relationships with potentially less powerful women. This conclusion is consistent with Lipman-Blumen 's (1976) observation that, because of men's greater access to resources, men have been more useful to women than have other women. On the other hand, the finding that those women who indicated a low level of preference for relationships with men developed significantly fewer relationships with men and more relationships with women than those women who expressed a high level of cross-gender preference indicates that some women have developed "a new homosocial world of their own, turning to one another, rather than to men, for help in exchange relationships" (Lipman-Blumen, 1976, p. 18). 173 2. Research Question 2: What is the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions he or she receives from same- and cross-gender networks? The hypotheses which correspond to Research Question 2 were predictions that the five (for women) and three (for men) homosocial attitudes would be significantly related in specified directions to the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same-gender (Hypotheses 3) and cross-gender (Hypothesis 4) networks. Both hypotheses were partially supported by the results for women and men. For women, each of the five homosocial attitudes was significantly related in the hypothesized direction to the levels of at least one of three relationship provisions received from same-gender networks (Intimacy, Defiance of Convention, Respect for Differences); none of the five homosocial attitudes was significantly related to the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same-gender networks. Conversely, none of the five homosocial attitudes was significantly related to the level of even one of the four relationship provisions received from cross-gender networks; however, the homosocial attitude of Cross-Gender Preference was significantly related in the hypothesized direction (positive relationship) to the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from cross-gender networks. For women, then, the results indicate that specific homosocial attitudes are related only to the more personal aspects of mentoring relationships with same-gender persons and only to the less personal and more task-oriented aspects of mentoring relationships with cross-gender persons. It may be that task-oriented interactions tend to occur between women in the workplace no matter what a woman's homosocial attitudes are. Same-gender work groups are a societal norm and the more task-oriented aspects of work interactions must be accomplished no matter what a person's personal preference is. However, cross-gender work relationships are somewhat outside the norm and personal preference may play a role in the more task-oriented aspects of these relationships. It may be that as women and men are integrating in the workplace, some of the tensions of integration are manifest in women as different degrees of preference for men as associates and, in turn, as 174 different levels of mentoring received from men: those women with low levels of preference for men receive low levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours from men, and those women with high levels of preference for men receive high levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours from male work associates. However, in terms of women's same-gender work relationships, personal preference may come into play only in the more personal aspects of these relationships, aspects which are more optional. Some interesting insights into the affective richness of women's same-gender work relationships may be obtained by examining the differing patterns of significant relationships between specific homosocial attitudes and individual relationship provisions. Each of the relationship provisions of Intimacy, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences received from same-gender networks was significantly related to at least one homosocial attitude; the pattern of significant relationships differed for each of these three relationship provisions. Women respondents who indicated low levels of Cross-Gender Preference and high levels of Valuing of and Identification with other women received significantly higher levels of Intimacy from same-gender networks than women respondents who indicated high levels of Cross-Gender Preference and low levels of Valuing of and Identification with other women. Women who indicated high levels of Same-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of Defiance of Convention from same-gender networks than women who indicated low levels of Same-Gender Preference. Finally, women who indicated low levels of Cross-Gender Preference, low levels of Jealousy of other women, and high levels of Valuing of other women received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from same-gender networks than women who indicated high levels of Cross-Gender Preference, high levels of Jealousy of other women, and low levels of Valuing of other women. In contrast, the results for men indicated very little relationship between the three homosocial attitudes applicable to men (Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing) and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks. No significant relationship was found between any of the homosocial attitudes and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- or 175 cross-gender networks. Only the relationship provision of Respect for Differences was significantly related (in the hypothesized direction) to homosocial attitudes: men who indicated low levels of Cross-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from same-gender networks than did men who indicated high levels of Cross-Gender Preference; conversely, men who indicated low levels of Same-Gender Preference received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from cross-gender networks than did men who indicated high levels of Same-Gender Preference. For men, then, a preference for relationships with cross-gender persons is accompanied by a lack of respect in actual relationships with members of the same gender, and a preference for relationships with same-gender persons is accompanied by a lack of respect in actual relationships with cross-gender persons. This might indicate a reactive preference for relationships with one gender when actual relationships with the other gender are not going well. It is interesting to note that while the results for women's same-gender relationships indicated a similar pattern to the men's results (in terms of levels of CGP, SGP, and Respect for Differences), high levels of Valuing of other women also accompanied high levels of Respect for Differences received from women's same-gender networks. For men, the only significant positive relationship between Valuing and a relationship provision was between Valuing and the level of Intimacy received from cross-gender networks. (Note, however, that the relationship was significant in the opposite direction to that hypothesized and that the relationship between Valuing and Intimacy received from men's same-gender networks was not significant.) This would indicate something of a displacement reaction. Intimate relationships between men are considered to be taboo in our culture in general (Lewis, 1978); the corporate culture which expects men to keep in check their personal feelings, particularly those of affection toward colleagues (Ochberg, 1987), may place further limits on the level of intimacy permissible between men. Perhaps those men who indicated a high level of valuing of relationships with men chose to act out this valuing in work relationships with women instead of in work relationships with men. This conclusion is consistent with the theories of Pleck (1975) and Safilios-Rothschild (1981), and with the research findings of Arnold and Chartier (1986), Toews 176 (1973), and Wetstein Kroft (1987/1988) which indicate that men tend to have their needs for intimacy and emotional closeness met primarily in relationships with women. 3. Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks? Three hypotheses (Hypotheses 5 to 7) addressed the issue of gender differences in the overall levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks in the workplace. Then, in an investigation of an expanded definition of the psychosocial aspect of mentoring, six hypotheses (Hypotheses 8 to 13) addressed the issue of gender differences in the levels of six relationship provisions -- Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Respect for Differences, Emotional Support, and Lifetime Attachment -- received from same- and cross-gender networks. The three hypotheses concerning Lifetime Attachment (Hypotheses 11 to 13) and the portion of Hypothesis 8 concerning Emotional Support could not be tested because these two relationship provisions were not supported by the results of the factor analyses conducted with the relationship provisions data gathered for the current study. Hypothesis 5, a prediction that same-gender networks would provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than cross-gender networks, was derived from the research findings of Brass (1985), Henderson (1985), Larwood and Blackmore (1978), and Reich (1986). Brass' results suggested the presence of gender-segregated informal networks in the organization he studied; Henderson found that "women executives were three times more likely than a man to have a woman as a mentor" (p. 860); the findings of Larwood and Blackmore indicated that both women and men were more likely to seek same-gender than cross-gender persons for leadership tasks; and Reich (1986) observed that 90% of the women in his study who had become mentors were mentors to other women, while less than 5% of the men were mentors to women. Hypothesis 5 was supported by the results for men only. Men's same-gender networks provided significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than did men's cross-gender 177 networks; there was no significant difference in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours provided by women's same- and cross-gender networks. In summary, then, the results for men in the current study are generally consistent with previous research, while the results for women are generally inconsistent with previous findings. Hypothesis 6 was written as an oppositional hypothesis to Hypothesis 5. The tendency toward gender-segregated informal networks noted by Brass (1985) and the greater likelihood of same-gender mentoring noted by Henderson (1985), Larwood and Blackmore (1978), and Reich (1986) might have been present in the current study. However, Hypothesis 6 predicted that, due to the continuing male-dominated gender ratios in the upper levels of management in the majority of organizations (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Noe, 1988), women's cross-gender networks would provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than would women's same-gender networks. Women seeking career assistance in a male-dominated organization might receive higher levels of mentoring from cross-gender networks simply because women network members might not be in the high-level positions that would enable them to supply high levels of mentoring behaviours. This hypothesis was not supported: there was no significant difference in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours supplied by women's same- and cross-gender networks, a finding which suggests that the women and men network members of the women respondents in this study were equally able to provide high levels of mentoring behaviours. More will be said about the potential effects of network members' organizational positions and access to institutional power and resources in the discussion which follows. The findings for Hypothesis 7 rounded out the investigation of gender differences in mentoring behaviours. Based on the theories of Lipman-Blumen (1976) and Tiger (1969), Hypothesis 7 was a prediction that men's same-gender networks would provide significantly higher levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours than women's same-gender networks. Women traditionally have not had access to the same levels of institutional power and resources as have men. Hence, women have not been as able as men to offer each other assistance with the acquiring of resources (Lipman-Blumen, 1976). Furthermore, both Lipman-Blumen (1976) and Tiger (1969) 178 state that the basis of male bonding is an attraction to power and status, and that men bond around the acquisition of resources and exclude women from these bonds. Hypothesis 7 was not supported. The women and men in the current study received equal levels of mentoring behaviours from their same-gender networks, indicating that the same-gender networks of the women and men in this study were equally able to offer to others assistance in acquiring resources. The results related to these three hypotheses suggest that it is organizational position (i.e., level of access to resources) rather than gender that determines the level of mentoring that is received. On average, women's and men's same-gender networks provided equal levels of mentoring behaviours, women's same- and cross-gender networks provided equal levels of mentoring behaviours, but men's same-gender networks provided significantly higher levels of mentoring behaviours than did men's cross-gender networks. The mean Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score for men's cross-gender networks (65.78) was much lower than the means for men's same-gender networks (83.19), women's same-gender networks (85.38), and women's cross-gender networks (83.56). These results warrant careful interpretation, following Colwill's (1982) cautions related to statistical significance and art if actuality in gender differences research. There was a considerable degree of overlap between the frequency distribution for men's cross-gender mentoring scores and each of the other three frequency distributions. The minimum and maximum mentoring scores for men's cross-gender networks were 1 and 146 (range = 145) compared with 11 and 159 (range = 148) for men's same-gender networks, 5 and 160 (range = 155) for women's cross-gender networks, and 2 and 155 (range = 153) for women's same-gender networks. These results indicate that, while the difference between the average mentoring scores for men's same- and cross-gender networks was statistically significant, all men respondents did not receive lower levels of cross-gender mentoring than same-gender mentoring. In fact, those men who received cross-gender mentoring scores between about 85 and 146 received scores higher than the means for men's same-gender networks and women's same- and cross-gender networks. One possible explanation for men's lower mean cross-gender mentoring scores may be found by comparing the total numbers (and percentages within each job level relative to the 179 respondent) of all of the same- and cross-gender supportive (mentoring) network members considered by women and men respondents while completing the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure (see Table 13). Women respondents listed relatively equal numbers of same-and cross-gender network members (a total of 635 same-gender persons were listed by 201 women respondents considered together, and a total of 683 cross-gender network members were listed). Men, however, listed about twice as many same-gender as cross-gender persons (a total of 566 same-gender persons were listed by 129 men respondents considered together, while only 278 cross-gender network members were listed). Translated into means, women respondents listed a mean of 3.16 same-gender network members and a mean of 3.40 cross-gender network members, while men respondents listed a mean of 4.39 same-gender network members and a mean of 2.16 cross-gender network members. It is possible that the male respondents in this study simply had fewer women than men available to them in their work environments or that many of the women who were available to them were not in positions that enabled them to provide high levels of mentoring. The percentage of network members in higher level positions (i.e., one or more levels higher than the respondent) was lower for men's cross-gender networks (21.2%) than for men's same-gender networks (41.2%) and women's cross-gender networks (54.4%). As well, the percentage of network members in lower level positions (i.e., subordinate to the respondent) was higher for men's cross-gender networks (15.1%) than for men's same-gender networks (5.5%) and women's cross-gender networks (5.7%). The relatively fewer numbers of women network members listed as providers of mentoring behaviours to men and the relatively lower level positions in which these women network members were employed may have contributed to the lower mean level of mentoring behaviours supplied by men's cross-gender networks. However, it is interesting to note that the percentages of network members in each job level relative to the respondent are roughly equal for men's cross-gender networks and women's same-gender networks. Given that the women and men respondents in this study were employed at roughly equal job levels (see Table B-4), the relative positions of their network members also would 180 Table 13 Network Members Considered While Completing the Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Measure: Numbers (and Percentages) of Same- and Cross-Gender Persons Listed Within Each Category of Relationship to Respondent Relationship to Number (and percentage) Number (and percentage) respondent of same-gender network of cross-gender network members members Women (n = 201) Subordinate 71 (11.2%) 39 (5.7%) Co-worker/colleague 411 (64.7%) 272 (39.8%) 1 or 2 levels higher 144 (22.7%) 369 (54.0%) 3 levels higher 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.4%) Not specified 9 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) Total 3 635 (100.0%) 683 (100.0%) Men (n = 129) Subordinate 31 (5.5%) 42 (15.1%) Co-worker/colleague 302 (53.4%) 177 (63.7%) 1 or 2 levels higher 232 (41.0%) 59 (21.2%) 3 levels higher 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) Not specified 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Total b 566 (100.0%) 278 (100.0%) Note. The results presented in this table are for those respondents who provided information about the gender of every mentoring network member listed and whose Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Scores were included in the hypothesis-testing analyses for Hypotheses 5 to 7 of Research Question 3. Hence, the ns reported above are slightly lower than those reported for the hypothesis-testing results. aWomen respondents listed a mean of 3.16 (SD = 1.83) same-gender network members and a mean of 3.40 (SD = 1.99) cross-gender network members. ^Men respondents listed a mean of 4.39 (SD = 1.98) same-gender network members and a mean of 2.16 (SD = 1.34) cross-gender network members. 181 have been roughly equal in terms of job level within the organization. This would suggest that the women network members listed by both women and men respondents were roughly equal in ability afforded by organizational position to assist the respondents with acquiring skills and resources. And yet the women network members listed by women provided a higher level of mentoring on average (M = 85.38) than the women network members listed by men (M = 65.78). The fact that the women respondents listed relatively more women network members (M = 3.16) than did men respondents (M = 2.16) may not have been enough to account for the lower mean mentoring score. In fact, it is unlikely that the number of people rated would be responsible, in itself, for lower scores. In Schroeder's (1988/1989) study respondents rated only one person at a time. The mean Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Scores obtained by Schroeder's respondents for their first (M = 87.32) and second (M = 79.94) sources of mentoring behaviours were very similar to the mean score obtained for women's same-gender networks {M = 85.38) in the current study, indicating that whether a respondent rates one person at a time or considers an average of 3.16 persons simultaneously, the scores obtained can be very similar. Perhaps the men's mean cross-gender mentoring score was lowered by the reduced numbers of women at higher level positions who were rated. The level of mentoring behaviours provided in the workplace, then, may have more to do with the organizational position of those persons providing the supportive behaviours than with the gender of the persons giving or receiving these behaviours. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of Ragins and McFarlin (1989) in their investigation of female and male protege's perceptions of Kram's (1985) career and psychosocial mentor roles in same- and cross-gender mentoring relationships in three organizations. They found that mentors who were the protege's supervisor were more likely to provide Sponsorship, Protection, Challenging Assignments, and Counselling. However, none of the main effects for gender (of protege or mentor) attained statistical significance in tests for gender differences in the protege's perception of the mentor's provision of 11 mentor roles. However, the main effect for gender composition of protege-mentor dyad did reach significance for 2 of the 11 mentor roles: Social and Role Modeling. Cross-gender mentors 182 were less likely than same-gender mentors to be perceived as providing social roles (i.e., participating in social activities after work); in addition, women mentors were significantly more likely to be perceived as role models by women than by men. These results are consistent with the findings in regard to relationship provisions in the current study: gender and gender composition of the support network did seem to influence the more personal (psychosocial) aspects of the supportive (mentoring) relationships. Many significant differences were found, as hypothesized, in the levels of relationship provisions supplied by women's and men's same- and cross-gender networks. Much of the hypothesis regarding the relationship provision of Intimacy (Hypothesis 8) was supported: women's same-gender networks provided significantly higher mean levels of Intimacy than did men's same-gender networks and women's cross-gender networks; however, no significant differences were found between the mean levels of Intimacy provided by women's and men's cross-gender networks or between men's same- and cross-gender networks. The research findings of Arnold and Chartier (1986), Toews (1973), and Wetstein Kroft (1987/1988), and the theories of Pleck (1975) and Safilios-Rothschild (1981) had indicated that both women and men tend to have needs for intimacy and emotional closeness met primarily in relationships with women. Burke (1984a), Collins (1983), and Reich (1986) found that mentoring relationships involving women as mentor or protege were richer in the psychosocial dimension than those of men. The findings of the current study suggested that women had their needs for intimacy in the workplace met predominantly in relationships with women; however men, on average, did not have their intimacy needs met in workplace relationships to the same extent as women (men's same-gender networks provided significantly lower levels of Intimacy than women's same-gender relationships, and there was no significant difference in the level of Intimacy provided by men's same and cross-gender networks). Only those relationships involving only women had significantly higher mean levels of Intimacy. The findings in regard to lower levels of Intimacy in cross-gender relationships (as compared to women's same-gender relationships) are consistent with the observation that the issue of potential sexual involvement may lead to the avoidance of friendship, social interaction, and 183 intimacy in cross-gender relationships in the workplace (Clawson & Kram, 1984; Kram, 1985; Ragins & McFarlin, 1989). The fact that same-gender networks also provided significantly higher levels of Defiance of Convention than cross-gender networks also is consistent with this observation. Letting down one's guard may be much more risky in cross-gender work relationships than in same-gender work relationships, simply because of the difficulties that might ensue with either perceived or actual sexual involvement between cross-gender work associates. The failure of the results of the current study to support the hypothesis that men's same-gender relationships would provide significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences than would women's same-gender relationships (Hypothesis 9) may be indicative of the level of cooperation and shared power required in these workplace relationships, no matter what the gender of the persons involved. Again, it may be that the organizational roles occupied by the women respondents in the current study (i.e., roughly equivalent job categories to the male respondents [see Table B-4], hence, roughly equal access to organizational power and resources and roughly equal levels of responsibility), were more important determinants of Respect for Differences than was gender. The results for women in lower level positions may have been different. These conclusions are consistent with Fagenson's (1990) findings that (a) persons employed in upper level positions in the organizational hierarchy perceived themselves to have greater amounts of two important sources of power (access to important people and resources) than persons employed at lower levels, and (b) upper level individuals scored significantly higher on measures of masculinity than lower level individuals. Because "power encourages individuals to feel that they can satisfy their own needs and desires.... [and], in turn, encourages them to perceive that they are more 'instrumental' or possess more masculine characteristics (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) than those who lack power" (Fagenson, 1990, p. 209), the women in the current study may have been more confident in their abilities to satisfy their own needs than women in the general population. Hence, their tendency toward merged attachments (Eichenbaum & Orbach, 1988) as evidenced by low levels of Respect for Differences would be reduced. 184 The finding that the same-gender networks of both women and men provided significantly higher levels of Similarity than did cross-gender networks (as hypothesized in Hypothesis 10) is consistent with the work of Arnold and Chattier (1986), Larwood and Blackmore (1978), and Wetstein Kroft (1987/1988), studies which also dealt with issues of the greater similarity of same-gender relationships. Arnold and Chattier (1986) found that men's same-gender networks were characterized by greater solidarity (avoidance of emotional expression concomitant with an activity orientation consisting of shared interests and activities) than their cross-gender relationships. Wetstein Kroft (1987/1988) found that the same-gender relationships of both women and men provided higher levels of social integration (shared attitudes, beliefs, interests, and activity preferences) than their cross-gender relationships. Larwood and Blackmore (1978) suggested that, because people generally perceive more similarities with same-gender persons than with cross-gender persons, ingroup/outgroup role relationships presumed by the vertical dyad linkage model (Dansereau et al., 1975) would be established on the basis of gender. As predicted, they found that more same-gender than cross-gender acquaintances were solicited for leadership tasks, a finding that suggests a bias toward promoting same-gender persons in managerial settings (Larwood & Blackmore, 1978). The results of the current study indicate that the respondents perceived gender differences in values, interests, and activity preferences; in the more personal aspects of their mentoring relationships there were "ingroup" members (same-gender persons) and "outgroup" members (cross-gender persons). While the three hypotheses regarding the relationship provision of Lifetime Attachment (Hypotheses 11-13) could not be tested due to the lack of factor-analytic support for the Lifetime Attachment factor, it is interesting to note that similarity has been found to be a powerful predictor of relationship longevity in men's same-gender friendships (Griffin & Sparks, 1990). 185 4. Research Question 4: How do homosocial attitudes in interaction with levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career- and job-related outcomes? Research Question 4 and the two hypotheses associated with it were formulated to address the potential interactive effect of homosocial attitudes and level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from same-gender (Hypothesis 14) and cross-gender (Hypotheses 15) networks on Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes. The nonsignificant interaction effects for both the same-gender and cross-gender analyses for both women and men, and the significant main effects for level of mentoring received from same- and/or cross-gender networks (significant univariate main effects for women's Skill Development Outcomes for both the same- and cross-gender analyses, for men's Skill Development and Affective Outcomes for the same-gender analyses, and for women's Affective Outcomes for the cross-gender analyses) indicated that no matter what an individual's personal preference regarding relationships with same-or cross-gender persons, high levels of mentoring from same- or cross-gender networks were related to high scores on Affective or Skill Development Outcomes. The nonsignificant main effect for level of mentoring received from cross-gender networks (LMCG) for men was most likely due to the very low median (38.00) used as the cutting score for dichotomizing LMCG scores as compared with the medians used for dichotomizing the women's LMCG (84.00) and the women's and men's level of mentoring received from same-gender networks (84.00 and 85.50, respectively). The men's cross-gender mentoring median was so low because (a) the mean and median for men's cross-gender Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Scores were much lower than the other TSBSs to start with, and (b) when the LMCG score was computed by giving those persons with no cross-gender persons listed as providers of mentoring behaviours a score of zero on LMCG and others their actual TSBS score, the median was lowered even further. Hence, when dichotomized into high and low scores, not all high scores (e.g., those greater than 38.00 and less than 84.00) were truly high when compared with high scores for women's same- and cross-gender mentoring and men's same-gender mentoring. 186 5. Research Question 5: How do levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks relate to career-and job-related outcomes,? The first of the two hypotheses associated with Research Question 5 was a prediction that, for both women and men, there would be significant positive relationships between the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from any source (same- or cross-gender network) on the one hand and Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes on the other (Hypothesis 16). This hypothesis was partially supported by the results for both women and men. The results indicated that career- and job-related outcomes tended to be positively and significantly related only to the less personal supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from cross-gender networks (CG TSBS) and to be positively and significantly related to both the less personal supportive (mentoring) behaviours (SG TSBS) and some of the more personal relationship provisions received from same-gender networks. These results are consistent with the observation of Clawson and Kram (1984), Kram (1985), and Ragins and McFarlin (1989) that the issue of potential sexual involvement may lead to the avoidance of friendship, social interaction, and intimacy in work relationships with cross-gender persons. For women, Skill Development Outcomes were the only outcomes that were positively and significantly related to mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions. That the results for Advancement Outcomes did not reach significance is not surprising, given that about 80% of the female respondents were from the public sector organizations in which opportunities for salary increases and/or promotions were limited. As well, given that four of the scales related to affective responses (Organizational Commitment, Satisfaction With Progression, Acceptance by Co-workers, Loneliness at Work) also had high factor loadings (> .30) on the women's Skill Development Outcomes factor, the positive and significant relationships between same- and cross-gender TSBS and Skill Development Outcomes also are somewhat reflective of positive relationships between TSBS and some affective responses to the job and organization as a whole. 187 For men, all three outcomes - Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes --were positively and significantly related to the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from both same- and cross-gender networks (with the one exception of the nonsignificant positive relationship between Advancement Outcomes and the level of supportive behaviours received from same-gender networks [SG TSBS]). Again, the nonsignificant results for Advancement Outcomes/SG TSBS are not surprising, given that about 80% of the male respondents were from the public sector organizations in which the opportunities for salary increases and/or promotions were restricted. The highly significant positive relationships between men's Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes on the one hand and the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received from cross-gender networks on the other are very interesting findings. They indicate that even though male respondents received significantly lower mean levels of mentoring behaviours from cross-gender networks (see the results and discussion for Research Question 3), those men who did receive high levels of mentoring behaviours from cross-gender networks benefited greatly: they had more positive feelings about their jobs, their co-workers, and the organizations in which they worked; they received more promotions and greater salary increases; and they reported higher levels of skill development than men who received low levels of mentoring behaviours from cross-gender networks. These results are consistent with Brass' (1985) findings that, while both women and men were less central in the informal interaction networks of the other gender, centrality in cross-gender interaction networks was significantly related to supervisors' ratings of influence while centrality in same-gender networks was not. For both women and men in Brass' (1985) study, informal contacts with cross-gender persons were advantageous in terms of perceived influence. The many positive and significant relationships between the Total Supportive Behaviour Scores and the three career- and job-related outcomes are consistent with Schroeder's (1988/1989) results. Using the same measure of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and very similar outcome variables to those used in the current study, he found that: 188 Employees who received higher levels of supportive behaviours had more positive attitudes toward their present organizational situation, had higher levels of skill development, and exhibited higher levels of outcomes associated with organizational advancement than did employees who received lower levels of supportive behaviours. (Schroeder, 1988/1989, p. 119) The fact that the relationship provisions of Intimacy and Similarity received from same-gender networks were positively and significantly related to women's Skill Development Outcomes, that Intimacy received from same-gender networks and Similarity received from cross-gender networks were positively and significantly related to men's Skill Development Outcomes, and that Respect for Differences received from same-gender networks was positively and significantly related to men's Affective Outcomes indicates that the more personal aspects of mentoring relationships in the workplace may be integral parts of both women's and men's career development. The results indicate that skill development in the workplace is enhanced by a network of close, supportive relationships for both women and men. Therefore, even though men received significantly lower mean levels of Intimacy from same-gender networks than did women (see the results and discussion for Research Question 3, Hypothesis 8), those men who did receive higher levels of Intimacy from same-gender networks reported significantly higher levels of Skill Development than did men who received lower levels of Intimacy from same-gender networks. The highly significant positive relationship between Similarity received from cross-gender networks on the one hand and men's Skill Development Outcomes on the other (the only significant positive relationship between a relationship provision received from cross-gender networks and a career- and job-related outcome for either women or men) is a hopeful sign of gender integration in today's organizations. Given that the overall level of similarity between male friends has been found to be a powerful predictor of friendship longevity (Griffin & Sparks, 1990) and that perceived similarity may be indicative of the "other" being perceived as an "ingroup" member (Larwood & Blackmore, 1978), the fact that men who perceived higher levels of Similarity with women network members reported significantly higher levels of Skill Development than did men who perceived lower levels of Similarity with women network members indicates that some women were perceived as "ingroup" members with something valuable to offer men. This would indicate a shift from Lipman-189 Blumen's (1976) observation that because women traditionally have not held positions of power, they have been less attractive, less stimulating, and less interesting than men: 'This uneven array of resources systematically made men more interesting to women, women less interesting and useful to other women, and women fairly often unnecessary and/or burdensome to men." [Lipman-Blumen, 1975, p. 440] This disparity of resources made it apparent that men were the most valued social beings, (p. 18) Finally, the failure of the results to support the hypothesis that, for both women and men, the level of relationship provisions received from same- or cross-gender networks would be significantly more strongly related to Affective Outcomes than to Advancement and Skill Development Outcomes (Hypothesis 17) suggests that the more personal aspects of mentoring relationships do not serve simply to make people feel better. The relationship provisions of Intimacy and Similarity received from same-gender networks are integral parts of learning important work-related skills for women, as are the relationship provisions of Intimacy received from same-gender networks and Similarity received from cross-gender networks for men. B. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Three factors limited the results of the current study. First, because the networks were studied from an ego-centered perspective (Alba, 1982), the study was limited to the perceptions of individual respondents. Second, the characteristics of the sample limit the generalizability of the results. The third set of limitations is related to the exploratory nature of the study. Each of these three factors is discussed separately below. 1. Individual Perceptions The current study was limited to the perceptions of individual respondents: all data were gathered by means of self-report measures; no supplementary information was obtained from independent observers of network activity or from other identified members of individual respondents' networks. This limitation was counteracted somewhat by evidence which indicates 190 that, in some situations, an individual's objective or real social world is much less important than the individual's perceptions of that world. For example, Henderson (1982) examined the relationship between the provisions of social relationships (or lack thereof) and the onset of neurosis in adults. He concluded that: The actual social environment has little effect on the development of neurotic symptoms; but when faced with adversity, those people who view their social relationships as inadequate have a substantially increased risk of developing neurotic symptoms, (p. 228) The present study examined the relationships between homosocial attitudes (individual attributes) and the perceived supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions of individuals' same- and cross-gender networks. The investigator views homosocial attitudes as shapers of perception and behaviour which, in turn, may affect the help or hindrance an individual receives from the environment. Homosocial attitudes may not be static; they may change over an individual's lifetime as a result of the interaction between the individual and his or her environment. It is for another study, however, to examine the types of interactions with same- and cross-gender persons which might precipitate changes in homosocial attitudes. The current study was simply an examination of here-and-now beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of actual relationships. 2. Characteristics of the Sample Several characteristics of the sample limit the generalizabilfty of the results. First, while the response rates for useable questionnaires within five of the seven organizations were adequate to excellent (50% to 100% in the one Crown corporation and four private sector organizations), the majority of the respondents (about 80% of the sample) were drawn from two organizations in the public sector (post-secondary education) in which the response rates were lower than the generally accepted rate of 50% considered adequate for mail surveys (Babbie, 1990). The lower response rates within the two public sector organizations (29.0% for women and 21.0% for men in the one post-secondary education institution; 43.4% for women and 34.6% for men in the other post-secondary education institution) were attributed to two things. First, the low 191 response rate in one post-secondary education institution was attributed in large part to the negative organizational climate within that organization. Second, the content of the questionnaire may have been more relevant to more potential respondents in the Crown corporation and private sector organizations than in the post-secondary education institutions. The Crown corporation and private sector organizations had more typical organizational structures in which people worked directly with other organizational members employed in similar positions. Each of the public sector institutions had two separate systems operating alongside one another: (a) one system for faculty members and (b) one system for staff members (potential respondents were drawn from this second group). The nature of the services being provided by these post-secondary education institutions (e.g., education, research) meant that many staff members were employed in positions in which their primary or only work contact was with faculty members or students; these staff members had little contact with peers in their own employment group. Some potential respondents in the post-secondary education institutions provided feedback about the solitary nature of their work. For example, one potential respondent from one of these educational institutions contacted the investigator to indicate that, while she would have liked to respond to the survey, the nature of her position (i.e., primarily independent work) did not enable her to respond to major portions of the questionnaire regarding relationships with organizational network members. It may be that the actual respondents in the post-secondary education institutions were employed in positions more similar to the respondents in the private sector organizations and Crown corporation (in terms of being in work settings that enabled regular contact with other organizational members in similar positions) than nonrespondents from the post-secondary education institutions. Unfortunately, this was very difficult to determine prior to distributing the questionnaires. While Babbie (1990) suggests that, in general, a 50% response rate is considered adequate, a rate of 60% is good, and a rate of 70% or greater is regarded as very good, he also states that "these are only rough guides; they have no statistical basis, and a demonstrated lack of response bias is far more important than a high response rate" (p. 182). Some lack of response bias and assurance of the generalizability of the results beyond the public sector samples was indicated by 192 the nonsignificant differences found among the variance-covariance matrices and the means obtained by respondents in the three types of organizations (public sector, private sector, and Crown corporation) on many of the key variables measured in the current study. For example, for both men and women, the variance-covariance matrices and the means obtained for the individual scales of the Close Social Relationships Scale and the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale were not significantly different for respondents in the three types of organizations. In addition, the men's variance-covariance matrices for the 10 career- and job-related outcome variables were not significantly different, and only one significant univariate difference was noted in the means obtained by men in the three types of organizations (men in the private sector received significantly higher scores on Average Salary Increase per Year than did men in the public sector). While no significant differences were found in the pairwise contrasts of women's career- and job-related variables, significant differences were noted in the variance-covariance matrices and in the overall MANOVA performed with the 10 variables. Given this pattern of differences, it may be that the results for the hypothesis-testing analyses involving the three career- and job-related factors -Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes - may have been different for a predominantly private sector sample. For example, the positive relationships between women's same- and cross-gender, and men's same-gender Total Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviour Score and Advancement Outcomes may have been stronger and, hence, significant. Other characteristics of the respondents versus nonrespondents indicate a lack of response bias. The women and men in both the actual and potential samples were very similar in terms of age and organizational tenure (see Table B-2). The average ages in the actual sample were 35.62 years for women and 36.13 years for men as compared with 37.43 years for women and 37.46 years for men in the potential sample; the average lengths of organizational tenure in the actual sample were 6.00 years for women and 5.38 years for men as compared with 5.43 years for women and 5.86 years for men in the potential sample. Both the actual and potential samples, then, were most representative of individuals in the advancement stage of career development: according to Hall (1976), individuals between the ages of 31 and 44 are in the advancement stage; other researchers (Gould & Hawkins, 1978; Mount, 1984; Stumpf & Rabinowitz, 1981), using length of organizational tenure as the criteria for career stage, suggest that individuals with 2 to 10 years tenure are in the advancement stage. Some potential sources of response bias include the following: The public sector respondents may have been more similar to the private sector and Crown corporation respondents than to the nonrespondents in their own organization. First, as mentioned earlier, respondents may have been employed in positions that enabled more regular contact with other organizational members employed in similar positions to the respondents than the positions of the nonrespondents allowed. Second, while the lower return rate in one public sector organization was attributed largely to the negative organizational climate within that organization, those respondents from that organization who did return questionnaires likely were people who had better feelings about their organization and about their relationships within the organization than the nonrespondents. This conclusion is based on three factors: (a) all but a few of the completed questionnaires were returned with the pre-stamped matching codes on them, indicating that most of the actual respondents were not concerned that participation represented a threat to anonymity, confidentiality, and job security; (b) many actual respondents identified themselves by name and/or department when giving feedback to the investigator, and many of these people offered positive feedback about the nature of the study; and (c) none of the pairwise contrasts involving variables such as Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Acceptance by Co-workers indicated significant differences between respondents in the public sector (approximately 75% of whom were in the organization with the lower response rate) and respondents in the private sector and Crown organizations. Had more of the dissatisfied potential respondents in the first post-secondary education institution returned the questionnaire, the means and variances for scales regarding job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and relationship provisions may have been altered (i.e., somewhat lower means and greater variance). In turn, this may have resulted in stronger and more significant correlations between career- and job-related outcomes and mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions. 194 In general, the response rate for men was lower than the response rate for women, a finding consistent with other relationship research (Rose, 1985a; Woolsey et al., 1988a, 1988b). For example, in Rose's (1985a) study of the professional networks of assistant professors in psychology, the response rates to a seven-page questionnaire were 61 % (of 127) for women and 26% (of 238) for men. Rose found no significant within-gender differences between respondents and nonrespondents for age, length of time since degree, length of time in current position, or percentage meeting the tenure-track assistant professor criterion for participation. It may be that the men who did respond in Rose's (1985a) study and in the current study were more relationship-oriented than the men who did not respond. Had more men who were less relationship-oriented responded, the findings of the present study in regard to gender differences in relationship provisions, for example, may have been more pronounced. Other characteristics of the respondent sample that limit the generalizability of the results are the level of education of the respondents (predominantly university graduates), the job categories of the respondents (all were employed in managerial, supervisory, professional, or higher-level technical positions), marital status (predominantly married or living with a partner), and ethnic designation (predominantly Anglo-European/Canadian). In addition, all respondents were drawn from moderate- to large-sized organizations in large urban centres, and from work settings that enabled access to both men and women in roughly equal positions. The results of the study, then, can be generalized only to populations with characteristics similar to this sample. 3. The Exploratory Nature of the Study Four issues contribute to the limitations related to the exploratory nature of the study: (a) the current exploratory stage of homosociality research, (b) the fact that scale development is in progress for many of the key variables investigated in the study, (c) the issue of probability levels for multiple tests of significance, and (d) the inability to establish causal links between the variables by utilizing bivariate correlational analyses of cross-sectional data. 195 The current exploratory stage of homosociality research. The field of homosociality is relatively undeveloped; therefore the current study was largely exploratory in nature. For example, relationships between homosocial attitudes on the one hand and organizational network activities on the other had not been investigated empirically prior to this study. In fact, relationships between homosocial attitudes and any other variables had been tested in only two other studies (Toews, 1973; Sigal, 1987). Hence, the hypotheses regarding homosocial attitudes as independent variables were simply the investigator's "best guesses" based on personal experience and insights gained from literature and research as closely related to homosocial attitudes and organizational network activities as could be found. Scale development. Scale development is in progress for many of the key variables investigated in the current study (homosocial attitudes, relationship provisions, composite measures of career- and job-related outcomes). This factor further added to the exploratory nature of the study. While the current stage of scale development was appropriate for the exploratory purposes of the current study, future scale development research should address test-retest reliability (this has not been assessed for the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale, the Close Social Relationships Scale, or Schroeder's [1988/1989] measure of supportive [mentoring] behaviours) in addition to expanding the already-existing investigations of construct validity. In addition, the Bonds Between Men Scale could be improved by future research aimed at developing men-only subscales comparable to the women-only subscales of Identification and Jealousy. Probability levels. A conservative approach was chosen in setting probability levels for tests of significance because of the predominantly exploratory nature of the study. To counteract the increased risk of Type I error caused by the large number of significance tests performed, alpha was apportioned using the Bonferroni inequality procedure to maintain an error rate of 5% within the primary analyses conducted for each research question. The number of secondary analyses (e.g., follow-up bivariate correlational analyses and univariate ANOVAs performed subsequent to multiple 196 regression analysis and significant MANOVAs, respectively) were not included in the apportionment calculations. Alpha for these secondary tests of significance remained at the same level as the alpha for the primary analyses for each question. These decisions were made in order to achieve a balance between controlling for Type I error and not unduly increasing the risk of of Type II error. Of the total of 176 bivariate correlations tested for significance in explorations of Research Questions 1, 2, and 5, 26 (14.8%) were significant at the alpha levels required for the current study. The fact that an additional 38 correlations (21.6%) were significant at alpha levels between those required and the .05 level suggests that something of significance was happening in the relationships examined. To have imposed even more stringent alpha levels in a strict application of the Bonferroni inequality procedure would have increased the Type II error rate considerably, an increased risk that was not deemed necessary given the largely exploratory nature of the research questions and hypotheses for which secondary significance tests of the bivariate correlations were employed. Of note are the highly significant results obtained for the MANOVA, univariate ANOVAs, and simple main effects analyses regarding gender and network gender composition differences in mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions (Research Question 3). The results were so highly significant (p < .005 or .001) that they would have remained significant even if an alpha stricter than the .025 level used had been set. Causality. Research in the field of counselling psychology and in the subject area of social support is characterized by correlational designs (Dooley, 1985; Fassinger, 1987) which are vulnerable to two main threats to internal validity: spurious correlation and reverse causation (Dooley, 1985). The correlational analyses of the cross-sectional data gathered in the current study are subject to both of these threats. A spurious correlation is said to exist when the observed relationship between two variables is actually caused by a third variable (Dooley, 1985). For example, social competence might be responsible for the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received and for the levels of career- and job-related 197 outcomes reported. A limitation of the study is that, because the questionnaire was already so long, measures of potentially confounding variables were not included to provide checks for spuriousness. Reverse causation exists "when the observed association is causal but the direction of causation is opposite from that hypothesized" (Dooley, 1985, p. 111). For example, the significant negative relationship between Cross-Gender Preference and the level of Respect for Differences received from women's same-gender networks (r = - .35, p < .001) may indicate that receiving low levels of Respect for Differences from other women results in a preference for men rather than the reverse. Hence, the results of the correlational analyses should be viewed as exploratory indications of potentially causal relationships; future research utilizing longitudinal designs and/or structural equation modeling or causal modeling would be required to establish causal relationships (Dooley, 1985; Fassinger, 1987). The positive findings of the current study (even those results significant between the required alpha levels and the .05 level) could be used in planning future research aimed at exploring causal and interactional relations between homosocial attitudes, mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions received from networks, and career- and job-related outcomes. C. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The results of the current study have a number of theoretical and practical implications. Many of the theoretical implications have been interwoven with the discussion of the factor analyses (see Appendix C) and with the discussion of the results for the five research questions. Some additional theoretical implications are presented in this section, and are followed by a discussion of the counselling implications of the results. Recommendations for future research are presented as the theoretical and practical implications are discussed. 1. Implications for Theory Career- and job-related outcomes. The findings of the current study and of Schroeder (1988/1989) suggest that career- and job-related outcomes can be meaningfully grouped into three conceptually and empirically distinct categories (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development 198 Outcomes) and that the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours (TSBS) received by individuals is positively and significantly related to each of these three outcomes. In addition, the results of the current study indicate that some of the more personal or psychosocial aspects of mentoring (relationship provisions) also are positively related to two of the career- and job-related outcomes (Affective and Skill Development Outcomes). Given that "few rigorous quantitative studies of the antecedents or outcomes of mentoring have appeared in the organizational behavior literature" (Noe, 1988, p.66), these composite outcome measures could be valuable in future research designed to evaluate the effectiveness of mentoring. The results of the factor analyses of 10 career- and Job-related variables (see Appendix C) contribute to the factor-analytic aspects of scale development for three composite measures of career- and job-related outcomes (Affective, Advancement, and Skill Development Outcomes). These results add to the findings of Schroeder (1988/1989) who, in the first and only other known investigation of the structure of career- and job-related outcomes, found a three-component structure comparable to that found in the preliminary analyses for the current study. The unique finding of the current study's factor analyses of career- and job-related outcomes data is that women's skill development is contextual. That is, four variables related to the context in which skill development occurs (Organizational Commitment, Satisfaction With Progression, Acceptance by Co-workers, and Loneliness at Work) also had high factor loadings (> .30) on the Skill Development Outcomes factor for women. In contrast, the three skill development variables Qob, interpersonal, and conceptual) loaded on a totally separate factor for the men in the current study and the predominantly male sample in Schroeder's (1988/1989) study. These findings, which are consistent with Surrey's (1985) self-in-relation theory of women's development, would need to be replicated in future research to determine if contextual skill development is generalizable to other all-woman samples or if ft is a phenomenon unique to the public sector sample of woman who provided the career- and job-related outcomes data for the factor analyses in the current study. 199 Homosocial attitudes. The results of the factor analyses conducted with the homosocial attitudes data collected for the current study contribute to the factor-analytic and construct-validation aspects of scale development for the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale (Bonds Scale) (see the discussion of the results of the factor analyses for homosocial attitudes data presented in Appendix C). The results of the hypothesis-testing analyses for Research Questions 1 and 2 in regard to the ability of individual homosocial attitudes to predict the size of same- and cross-gender mentoring networks and the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks have implications primarily for theories of women's homosociality in the workplace. For women, homosocial attitudes do predict network size and activities (see discussion of the results for Research Questions 1 and 2). Attributes of the individual woman (i.e., specific homosocial attitudes) are significantly related to the level of support she receives from work associates. However for men, very little relationship was indicated between specific homosocial attitudes and the size and activities of same- and cross-gender networks in the workplace. The discrepancy in the results for women and men may be due to the different socialization experiences of women and men. The management, supervisory, professional, and higher-level technical positions in which the respondents were employed are positions that traditionally have been occupied mainly by men. The women respondents in the current study, then, were employed in nontraditional occupations for women. Women entering nontraditional fields may have to think about factors that might affect career advancement (e.g., relationships with same- and cross-gender work associates) more than men. It is possible that integration into organizational networks was more of a given for the men respondents than for the women and, therefore, that accessibility of homosocial attitudes was lower for men than for women. Strong attitudes - those that are more accessible or more readily brought to mind - have been found to predict behaviour more effectively than weak ones (Baron & Byrne, 1987). Therefore, it is possible that stronger relationships were found between homosocial attitudes and perceptions of network behaviours for women than for men 200 because women's homosocial attitudes were stronger and more accessible than men's. Had the current study been conducted in a nontraditional setting for men (e.g., nursing, full-time "stay-at-home" parenting), where integration into the predominantly women's networks is not a given for men, the results may have been different. Men entering a predominantly female culture may have to think more about relationship dynamics that affect acceptance into the networks. Therefore, homosocial attitudes might be more accessible for men and have a stronger relationships with network activities in a nontraditional setting. The findings that homosocial attitudes did predict network size and activities for women but that very little relationship was noted between men's homosocial attitudes and network size and activities also may be another indication of the affective richness of women's relationships as compared with the more task-oriented focus of men's. Women's "feelings, likes and dislikes, behavioral intentions, thoughts, and ideas" (Baron & Byrne, 1987, p. 116) in regard to same- and cross-gender relationships may be expressed behaviourally (in actual same- and cross-gender relationships) more often than men's. The results of the current study indicate that, while women's homosocial attitudes are significantly related to the size of same- and cross-gender networks and the levels of mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions received (Research Questions 1 and 2), as long as a woman receives high levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours from same- or cross-gender networks she will have significantly higher levels of skill development and/or affective outcomes, regardless of her homosocial attitudes (Research Question 4). This would suggest that even if a woman would prefer to associate with female co-workers or supervisors, she would be well-advised to put her attitudes aside and receive mentoring behaviours from persons of either gender. The Bonds Between Women Scale is a comprehensive measure of women's homosocial attitudes; it could be a valuable research tool in investigations of the development of women's organizational relationships. The Bonds Scale could be used in longitudinal studies to track changes in women's attitudes toward other women, and changes in the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks 201 at various stages in that development. Qualitative research methods, such as interviewing, would be very useful additions to this future research; for example, in-depth interviews could draw out valuable information related to the context in which women's homosocial attitudes and organizational relationships develop and change. Interview questions asked of women with high levels of the homosocial attitudes of Identification and Valuing, for example, could include: "What events or experiences led you to value so highly your relationships with other women?" Marshall's (1984) description of the development of women managers' sense of identification with other women, and Kanter's (1977) and Law's (1975) theories of tokenism, for example, could be used in the development of a theoretical framework for such a study. The gathering of additional demographic data, such as information about the number of children or other dependents (e.g., elderly parents), also would provide important contextual information. Gender differences in mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions. Homosociality at the level of actual relationships was investigated by testing predictions regarding gender differences in the levels of mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions (intimacy, similarity, defiance of convention, and respect for differences) received from same- and cross-gender networks in the workplace. The results indicated one significant main effect for gender of respondent: women's same-gender networks provided more intimacy than men's same-gender networks. In addition, several significant main effects for gender composition of network were found: (a) men's same-gender networks provided more mentoring than their cross-gender networks; (b) women's same-gender networks provided more intimacy than their cross-gender networks; and (c) for both women and men, same-gender networks provided higher levels of similarity and defiance of convention than cross-gender networks. These results provide support for Bernard's (1976) description of gender "differences in sociality, the different ways that men and women related to their own sex - homosociality -- and to the other sex - heterosociality" (pp. 227-228). Bernard suggests that "the female way of being social - involving bonds, affiliation, attachment" (p. 228) is different from the male way of being social, that 202 "the male sex role has fostered not expressivity - which is conducive to intimacy, communion, or attachment -- but inexpressivity which is not" (p. 228). The findings that women's same-gender networks provided higher levels of intimacy than men's same-gender networks and women's cross-gender networks support Bernard's (1976) statements. Other gender differences in sociality implied by Bernard's definition but not explicitly mentioned by her are indicated by the finding that, for both women and men, same-gender (homosocial) networks provided higher levels of similarity and defiance of convention than cross-gender (heterosocial) networks. The results also suggest that differences in sociality are more evident in the more personal or psychosocial (relationship provisions) aspects of mentoring relationships in the workplace than in the more task-oriented aspects (overall level of mentoring behaviours received). While men's same-gender networks provided higher levels of mentoring behaviours than their cross-gender networks, women's same- and cross-gender networks provided equal levels of mentoring behaviours, as did the same-gender networks of women and men. These results are generally consistent with the findings of Burke (1984a), Kram (1985), Ragins and McFarlin (1989), and Reich (1986), all of whom noted gender differences in the psychosocial aspect of mentoring. Burke (1984a) concluded that mentoring relationships involving women appeared to be comparable to those involving men; however, both Burke (1984a) and Reich (1986) noted that women's relationships included a more vital emotional component. The findings of Kram (1985) and Ragins and McFarlin (1989) indicated that cross-gender mentoring relationships are more limited in the friendship or social aspects than are same-gender relationships. Kram's results indicated that cross-gender persons avoided interactions in informal settings because of concerns that these interactions would be interpreted sexually both by the parties involved and by other organizational members. Further evidence of the limited nature of the psychosocial aspects of cross-gender mentoring relationships is provided by the bivariate correlations between mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks and each of the three career- and job-related outcomes. The outcomes tended to be positively and significantly related only to the less personal mentoring behaviours received from cross-gender networks and to be 2 0 3 positively and significantly related to both the less personal mentoring behaviours and some of the more personal relationship provisions received from same-gender networks. For example, the relationship provisions of intimacy (for women and men) and similarity (for women) provided by same-gender networks were positively and significantly related to skill development indicating that, for both women and men, skill development is enhanced by close, supportive relationships with same-gender persons. The only indication of a closer bond in cross-gender relationships was the positive and significant relationship between cross-gender similarity and skill development for men. This overall pattern of results suggests that, in general, persons involved in cross-gender mentoring relationships may lose out on the benefits of the closer, more informal style of relating that characterizes same-gender relationships. The findings in regard to gender differences in intimacy suggest even more specific losses of learning opportunities. The significant positive relationship between intimacy received from same-gender networks and skill development for both men and women suggests that both women and men benefit from close, supportive work relationships. Therefore, men in general (who report lower levels of intimacy than women involved in same-gender relationships), and women involved in cross-gender relationships (which provide lower levels of intimacy than women's same-gender relationships), would tend to lose out on the increased support for skill development that is associated with higher levels of intimacy. Since gender differences in mentoring tend to occur predominantly around the relationship provisions of intimacy and similarity, future research on mentoring relationships could focus on these two provisions in addition to the overall level of less personal mentoring behaviours provided (TSBS). Gathering more specific data about the structural aspects of men's and women's work would be valuable in determining the factors other than gender that might be responsible for significant differences. For example, in the current study, the lower level of mentoring provided by men's cross-gender relationships may have been due to the relatively lower level positions in which their women network members were employed as compared with the men network members of both women and men. Other structural aspects that might affect the results include respondents' specific job responsibilities (as opposed to the general type of position measured in the current 204 study). The fact that women are far more likely to be employed in or to manage relationship-oriented areas (e.g., public relations, human resources) than" 'line' profit-and-loss operation[s], like manufacturing, finance or sales" (Fisher, 1988, p. 38) may, in itself, increase the level of intimacy reported in women's same-gender relationships. Future research could investigate whether women employed in less relationship-oriented positions report lower levels of same-gender intimacy than women employed in more traditional areas. In turn, men employed in human relations areas may report higher levels of same- and cross-gender intimacy. 2. Implications for Counselling A number of implications for counselling are suggested by the results of the current study. First, the finding that for women, but generally not for men, homosocial attitudes are significantly related to the size and activities of same- and cross-gender networks would suggest that women in general are experiencing difficulties in becoming integrated into organizational networks. This would be a useful piece of information to convey to women clients experiencing difficulties in same- or cross-gender relationships at work. This knowledge in itself could be very validating to a woman who might think she is the only one experiencing difficulty. The findings that women's same- and cross-gender networks provided levels of mentoring behaviours equal to those of men's same-gender networks and that, for both genders, the levels of mentoring behaviours received from both same- and cross-gender networks were positively and significantly related to career- and job-related outcomes suggest that gender integration is occurring at the managerial, supervisory, professional, and higher-level technical levels in some of today's organizations. Therefore, those discouraged by the difficulties of integration may take heart in knowing that progress is being made. Second, the combined findings that (a) for women in particular, homosocial attitudes are significantly related to the size and activities of same- and cross-gender networks, and (b) for both women and men, same-gender networks provide higher levels of similarity than cross-gender networks, indicate that perceptions of "ingroup" and "outgroup" are operating as social or ego defenses in work relationships between and within the genders. While these defenses may, in fact, 205 reduce the anxiety associated with two cultures (i.e., male culture and female culture) blending on common turf, they also may limit the exchange of information and support between and within the two cultures which are necessary for optimal individual and organizational functioning. One of Hirschhorn's (1988) main propositions in his description of the psychodynamics of work is that the social defenses utilized to manage anxiety depersonalize relationships at work and distort the capacity to accomplish the primary tasks of the organization. He suggests that group development occurs when group members cease to scapegoat or devalue each other or "outsiders". He lays side by side "the regressive and developmental pulls of work" (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 10) in suggesting that: Although people rely on social defenses to contain their anxiety and consequently scapegoat clients, customers, or co-workers, they also desire to restore their experience of psychological wholeness and repair the real or imagined psychological damage they have done in devaluing others. This desire for reparation helps to limit the level of social irrationality in any group setting and provides a strong basis for moments of group development, (p. 10) Counsellors could be valuable facilitators of transformation toward wholeness as individuals and work groups seek to "integrate once divided roles, units, divisions, and organizations" (Hirshhorn, 1988, p. 10) by openly facing and working through their anxiety about men and women working together as equals rather than containing their anxiety with social defenses. One specific area of anxiety that could be addressed in counselling is the issue of emotional intimacy in general and sexuality in particular. The finding of the current study and of others (Kram, 1985; Ragins and McFarlin, 1989) that cross-gender mentoring relationships are more limited in the psychosocial domain than are same-gender relationships suggests that sexual concerns may limit the more personal or informal aspects of cross-gender mentoring relationships. This suggests the need for future research which includes measures of variables more directly related to sexuality (e.g., sexual harassment, personal comfort with sexual feelings toward cross-gender colleagues and supervisors) to determine if sexual concerns are related to a reduction in the psychosocial aspects of cross-gender mentoring relationships. In addition, the lower levels of intimacy in men's same- and cross-gender relationships (as compared with women's same-gender relationships) and the finding 206 that, for men, the homosocial attitude of valuing relationships with men is positively and significantly related to intimacy with women rather than to intimacy with men suggest that expressions of intimacy are being limited and distorted in men's work relationships. Given that a finding of the current study was that the more personal aspects of mentoring relationships (i.e., intimacy, similarity) were positively and significantly related to skill development, the more limited psychosocial nature of cross-gender mentoring relationships and the more limited expression of intimacy for men in general may represent losses in learning opportunities. However, while higher levels of intimacy in work relationships are associated with higher levels of skill development, sexual feelings for colleagues and emotional intimacy in work relationships also may be problematic. Woolsey and McBain (1987a) documented the powerful negative consequences of high levels of emotional intimacy in women's same-gender work relationships when this intimacy occurs in the absence of appropriate boundary setting. Woititz (1989) also has described the "unresolved anger and dependency needs [that] will be played out in ... work relationships" (p. 16) if individuals have difficulty maintaining appropriate social and emotional boundaries with supervisors and co-workers. Hirschhorn (1988) suggests that sexual feelings at work can be both valuable and dangerous. If sexual feelings are acknowledged and allowed to find expression in the creative activities of work while maintaining appropriate work boundaries, the result is more focused and productive work. If, however, "anxiety disrupts the delicate balance between sex and its sublimation, the danger pulls one away from role and into the realm of illicit fantasies or promiscuous wishes" (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 133). If a more complete gender integration is to occur in organizations, men and women must confront the issue of sexual feelings for colleagues rather than avoiding informal interactions. However, intimacy and sexual issues may be too highly charged to work through directly with colleagues in the work setting. Counsellors aware of the importance of these issues in workplace relationships could assist clients to work through their feelings and to fine-tune their ability to set appropriate boundaries within the safety of the therapeutic relationship. 207 The ability to acknowledge and to appropriately interpret and act on feelings is important to the maintenance of supportive work relationships and to effectiveness as a manager. Hirschhorn (1988) suggests that the primary task of a manager is "to interpret rules and apply them to particular situations, to make exceptions when necessary, and to integrate the nonformal flow of information, people, and resources within the formal system of rules of behavior and principles of work" (p. 110). What makes this task so difficult is that "the manager must bring her person, her self to her role. She must invest her role with the dimension of her own affects. Because rules must be interpreted, people must use their feelings to direct them in a particular situation" (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 110). Hence, anything that limits access to or distorts the appropriate expression of feelings limits effectiveness as a manager. Again, counsellors could be valuable resources to persons wanting to resolve, in a safe and appropriate setting, affectively-based issues that become apparent in workplace relationships. A new speciality area for counsellors and psychotherapists is emerging as writers such as Hirschhorn (1988), Ulrich and Dunne (1986), and Woititz (1989) discuss the facets of the workplace that make it conducive to the playing out of unresolved family of origin issues. If counsellors are to facilitate successful resolution of issues triggered by events and relationships in the workplace, they will require an expanded knowledge base. This knowledge base must extend beyond the stance of "the traditional career counsellor [who] is hampered ... by the tendency to avoid anything that is too deeply personal, most notably the impact of the family" (Ulrich & Dunne, 1986, p. 6), as well as beyond the stance of "most psychotherapists [who] handicap themselves by overlooking the importance of career and workplace issues" (Ulrich & Dunne, 1986, p. 6). The results of the current study make some important contributions to the knowledge base for this developing counselling specialty. The results clearly demonstrate (a) the relationship between an individual's homosocial attitudes and organizational network activities, (b) gender differences and similarities in sociality, and (c) the relationship between supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions and career- and job-related outcomes. In particular, the findings that intimacy received from same-gender networks is positively and significantly related to both men's and women's skill development 208 and that women's skill development, in particular, is embedded in the context of supportive work relationships suggest that counselling for effective work relationships requires more than a task-oriented, cognitive approach. Transformations of a deeper nature can be facilitated in "a new culture of work that supports the reparative process" (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 240) and enables men and women to reclaim their wholeness, to claim and to act on both masculine and feminine characteristics in the context of their work and work relationships. D. CONCLUSIONS The current study was a comprehensive investigation of homosociality in the workplace. Predictions regarding gender differences in the mentoring and personal relationship activities of women's and men's supportive networks in the workplace were tested, as were predictions about variables conceptualized as antecedents (homosocial attitudes) and outcomes (affective, advancement, and skill development outcomes) of mentoring. Overall, the findings indicated that a tendency toward homosociality was evident in the attitudes, behaviours, and outcomes investigated. However, the findings also indicated that, as men and women interact on common organizational turf, a blending of masculine and feminine qualities is occurring. Perhaps the attitudes and relationships of the women and men respondents in this study are signs that a vision comparable to that of Chicago (1979) is well underway: And then all that has divided us will merge And then compassion will be wedded to power And then softness will come to a world that is harsh and unkind And then both men and women will be gentle And then both women and men will be strong And then no person will be subject to another's will And then all will be rich and free and varied And then the greed of some will give way to the needs of many And then all will share equally in the Earth's abundance And then all will care for the sick and the weak and the old And then all will nourish the young And then all will cherish life's creatures And then all will live in harmony with each other and the Earth And then everywhere will be called Eden once again (Chicago, 1979, page immediately following p. 255) 209 REFERENCES Abramson, J. (1979). Old boys, new women: The politics of sex discrimination. New York: Praeger. Adler, S., & Aranya, N. (1984). A comparison of the work needs, attitudes, and preferences of professional accountants at different career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 45-57. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918. Alba, R.D. (1982). Taking stock of network analysis: A decade's results. In S.B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 39-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Alleman, E. (1985). Manual for the Alleman Leadership Development Questionnaire. (Available from Leadership Development Consultants, Inc., 5819 South Shandle Boulevard, Mentor, OH 44060). Alleman, E. (1986). Measuring mentoring -- frequency, quality, impact. In W.A. Gray & M.M. Gray (Eds.), Mentoring: Aid to excellence in career development, business and the professions. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mentoring (Vol. II, pp. 44-51). Vancouver, B.C.: International Association for Mentoring. Alleman, E., Cochran, J., Doverspike, J., & Newman, I. (1984). Enriching mentoring relationships. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 62, 329-332. Allport, G. (1955). The nature of prejudice. Boston: Beacon Press. Aries, E.J., & Johnson, F.L (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9,1183-1196. Arnold, W.J., & Chartier, B.M. (1986, June). Intimacy and solidarity in men's relationships. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bard wick, J. M. (1977). Some notes about power relationships between women. In A. G. Sargent, Beyond sex roles (pp. 325-335). St. Paul: West Publishing. Baron, R.A., & Byrne, D. (1987). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (5th ed.) Toronto: Allyn and Bacon. Bell, R.R. (1981). Friendships of women and of men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 402-417. Beller, A.H. (1984). Trends in occupational segregation by sex and race, 1960-1981. In B.F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation in the workplace: Trends, explanations, remedies (pp. 11-26). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bernard, J. (1976). Homosociality and female depression. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 213-238. Bernard, J. (1981). The female world. New York: Free Press. 210 Black, LB. (1982). The benefits and long range implications of the networking process. In J. Fraser & E. Hendry (Eds.), Women's networks in Canada (pp. 1-20). Vancouver, BC: Centre for Continuing Education, University of British Columbia. Blau, F.D. (1984). Occupational segregation and labor market discrimination. In B. F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation in the workplace: Trends, explanations, remedies (pp. 117-143). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Blau, J.R., & Alba, R.D. (1982). Empowering nets of participation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 363-379. Bolton, E.B. (1980). A conceptual analysis of the mentor relationship in the career development of women. Adult Education, 30,195-207. Booth, A. (1972). Sex and social participation. American Sociological Review, 37,183-193. Brass, D.J. (1985). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327-343. Briles, J. (1987). Woman to woman: From sabotage to support. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press. British Columbia. Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. (1979). Advancement opportunities in the British Columbia Public Service: A study for the Equal Employment Opportunities Committee of the Public Service Commission. Victoria: British Columbia, Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, Economic Analysis and Research Bureau. Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., Rosenkrantz, D.S., & Vogel, S.R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgements of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1-7. Burke, R.J. (1984a). Mentors in organizations. Group & Organization Studies, 9, 353-372. Burke, R.J. (1984b). Relationships in and around organizations: It's both who you know and what you know that counts. Psychological Reports, 55, 299-307. Caldwell, M.A., & Peplau, LA. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721-732. Canada. Women's Bureau. (1987). Women in the labour force: 1986-87 edition. Ottawa: Labour Canada, Women's Bureau. (Catalogue No. L016-1578/87B). Caplan, P.J. (1981). Between women: Lowering the barriers. Toronto: Personal Library. Caplan, P.J. (1985a). Anti-feminist women. International Journal of Women's Studies, 8, 351 -355. Caplan, P.J. (1985b). Women in groups: Introduction. International Journal of Women's Studies, 8, 305-309. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. Chicago, J. (1979). The dinner party: A symbol of our heritage. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 211 Clarkson, F.E., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., & Rosenkrantz, P.S. (1970). Family size and sex-role stereotypes. Science, 167, 390-392. Clawson, J.G. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers. In CB. Derr (Ed.), Work, family, and the career (pp. 144-165). New York: Praeger. Clawson, J.G., & Kram, K.E. (1984). Managing cross-gender mentoring. Business Horizons, 27(3), 22-32. Collins, E.G.C., & Scott, P. (1978). Everyone who makes it has a mentor: Interviews with F.J. Lunding, G.L Clements, and D.S. Perkins. Harvard Business Review, 56, 89-101. Collins, N.W. (1983). Professional women and their mentors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Colwill, N.L (1982). The new partnership: Women and men in organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Cott, N.F. (1977). The bonds of womanhood: "Woman's sphere" in New England, 1790-1835. London: Yale University Press. Cutrona, C.E., & Russell, D.W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 37-67). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Darling, LAW. (1985). The mentoring dimension. Journal of Nursing Administration, 15(9),41 -42. Davis, K.E., & Todd, M.J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and relationship description. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Dellacava, F.A., & Engel, M.H. (1979). Resistance to sisterhood: The case of the professional woman. International Journal of Women's Studies, 2, 505-512. Dooley, D. (1985). Causal inference in the study of social support. In S. Cohen & LS. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 109-125). New York: Academic Press. Dunn, O.J. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 52-64. Eichenbaum, L, & Orbach, S. (1983a). Understanding women: A feminist psychoanalytic approach. New York: Basic Books. Eichenbaum, L, & Orbach, S. (1983b). What do women want: Exploding the myth of dependency. New York: Berkley Books. Eichenbaum, L, & Orbach, S. (1988). Between women: Love, envy, and competition in women's friendships. New York: Viking. 212 Employment Equity Act. (1986). In Canada, Employment Equity Branch, Employment and Immigration Canada, Employment Equity Act and reporting requirements (Tab A, pp. 1-5). (Catalogue No. MP43-187/1986E). Epstein, C.F. (1970). Encountering the male establishment: Sex-status limits on women's careers in the professions. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 965-982. Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Fagan, M.M., & Fagan, P.D. (1983). Mentoring among nurses. Nursing & Health Care, 4,77-82. Fagenson, E.A. (1985). On moving up: A test of the person-centered, organization-centered and interactionist perspectives. In R.B. Robinson, Jr. & J.A. Pierce II (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 345-349). Academy of Management. Fagenson, E.A. (1990). Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined as a function of individuals' sex and level in the organizational power hierarchy: A test of four theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 204-211. Farren, C, Gray, J.D., & Kay, B. (1984). Mentoring: A boon to career development. Personnel, 61(6), 20-24. Fassinger, R.E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 425-436. Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C, & Herr, P.M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one's attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723-735. Feldman, D.C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433-452. Fischer, OS. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fisher, A. B. (1988). If we're so smart, why aren't we rich? Sawy, August, 36, 38, 84-85. Forisha, B.L, & Goldman, B.H. (1981). Outsiders on the inside: Women and organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fraser, J., & Hendry, E. (Eds.). (1982). Women's networks in Canada. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Continuing Education, University of British Columbia. Ghaffaradli-Doty, P., & Carlson, E.R. (1979). Consistency in attitude and behavior of women with a liberated attitude toward the rights and roles of women. Sex Roles, 5, 396-404. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gould, S., & Hawkins, B.L. (1978). Organizational career stage as a moderator of the satisfaction-performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 434-450. 213 Gray, W.A., & Gray, M.M. (Eds.). (1986). Mentoring: Aid to excellence in career development, business and the professions. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mentoring (Vol. II). Vancouver, B.C.: International Association for Mentoring. Griffin, E., & Sparks, G.G. (1990). Friends forever: A longitudinal exploration of intimacy in same-sex friends and platonic pairs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 29-46. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4,148. (Ms. No. 810) Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Hakim, C. (1979). Occupational segregation: A comparative study of the degree and pattern of the differentiation between men and women's work in Britain, the United States and other countries. London: Department of Employment. (Research Paper, No. 9) Hakstian, A.R., & Bay, K.S. (undated). User's manual to accompany the Alberta General Factor Analysis Program [Computer program manual to accompany the 1972 version of the Alberta General Factor Analysis Program]. Edmonton: University of Alberta. Hall, D.T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Hall, D.T., & Nougaim, K. (1968). An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in an organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3,12-35. Harlan, A., & Weiss, C.L. (1980). Career opportunities for women managers. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family, and the career: New frontiers in theory and research. New York: Praeger. Henderson, D.W. (1985). Enlightened mentoring: A characteristic of public management professionalism. Public Administration Review, 45, 857-863. Henderson, S. (1982). The significance of social relationships in the etiology of neurosis. In CM. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 205-231). New York: Tavistock Publications. Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books. Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The workplace within: Psychodynamics of organizational life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hunt, D.M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8, 475-485. Josefowitz, N. (1980). Paths to power: A woman's guide from first job to top executive. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kanter, R.M. (1981). Structuring the inside: The impact of organizations on sex differences. In B.L Forisha & B.H. Goldman, Outsiders on the inside: Women and organizations (pp. 75-84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 214 Katz, R.L (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42. Klopf, G.J., & Harrison, J. (1981). Moving up the career ladder: The case for mentors. Principal, 67(1), 41-43. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Kram, K.E., & Isabella, LA. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28,110-132. LaFrance, M. (1982). Women and the mentoring process: Problems, paradoxes. Behavior Today, 73(15), 5. La Gaipa, J.J. (1977). Testing a multidimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 249-270). London: Academic Press. Larwood, L, & Blackmore, J. (1978). Sex discrimination in managerial selection: Testing predictions of the vertical dyad linkage model. Sex Roles, 4, 359-367. Laws, J.L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 7,51-67. Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.N., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Balantine. Lewis, R.A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 108-121. Liden, R.C. (1985). Female perceptions of female and male managerial behavior. Sex Roles, 12, 421-432. Lincoln, J.R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,181-199. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1975). Changing sex roles in American culture: Future directions for research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 4, 433-446. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. In M. Blaxall & B. Reagan (Eds.), Women and the workplace: The implications of occupational segregation (pp. 15-31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lovelady-Dawson, F. (1981). No room at the top: Women and minorities in education. Principal, 67(1), 37-40. Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mahler, M., Pine, F., & Berman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books. Marascuilo, LA., & Levin, J.R. (1983). Multivariate statistics in the social sciences: A researcher's guide. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Marshall, J. (1984). Women managers: Travellers in a male world. Toronto: John Wiley. 215 McBain, L.L., & Woolsey, LK. (1986). Career and life role aspirations of high ability women undergraduates. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 20,157-176. Melder, K. (1977). Beginnings of sisterhood: The American woman's rights movement, 1800-1850. New York: Shocken Books. Miller, J.B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Miller, R.S., & Lefcourt, H.M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 514-518. Missirian, A.K. (1981). The process of mentoring in the career development of female managers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3654-A. Moore, G. (1985). Horizontal and vertical - the dimensions of occuptional segregation by gender in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. (The CRIAW Papers, No. 12) Mount, M.K. (1984). Managerial career stage and facets of job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 340-354. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, LW. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. The New English Bible. (1970). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noe, R.A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 73(1), 65-78. Ochberg, R.L (1987). The male career code and the ideology of role. In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies (pp. 173-192). Boston: Allen & Unwin. Oldham, G.R., Hackman, J.R., & Stepina, LP. (1979). Norms for the Job Diagnostic Survey. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 9,14. (Ms No. 1819) Ornstein, M.D. (1982). Gender wage differentials in Canada: A review of previous research and theoretical framework. Ottawa: Labour Canada, Women's Bureau. (Catalogue No. L39-21/1-1982E) Orth, CD., Wilkinson, H.E., & Benfari, R.C (1987). The manager's role as coach and mentor. Organizational Dynamics, 15(4), 66-74. Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and proteges. New York: Arbor House. Pinder, C.C (1982). Survey of transfer-related attitudes. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Pinder, C.C, & Schroeder, K.G. (1987). Time to proficiency following job transfers. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 336-353. Pleck, J.H. (1975). Man to man: Is brotherhood possible? In N. Glazer-Malbin (Ed.), Old family/new family (pp. 229-244). New York: D. Van Nostrand. 216 Power, S.G. (1981). Foreword. In B.L Forisha & B.H. Goldman, Outsiders on the inside: Women and organizations (pp. vii-viii). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ragins, B.R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager's dilemma. Human Relations, 42, 1-22. Ragins, B.R., & McFarlin, D.B. (1989). Mentor roles: An investigation of cross-gender mentoring relationships. In F. Hoy (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 58-62). Academy of Management. Rawlings, E.I., & Carter, D.K. (1977). Values and value change in psychotherapy. In E.I. Rawlings & D.K. Carter (Eds.), Psychotherapy for women: Treatment toward equality (pp. 5-33). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Reagan, B., & Blaxall, M. (1976). Occupational segregation in International Women's Year. In M. Blaxall & B. Reagan (Eds.), Women and the workplace: The implications of occupational segregation (pp. 1-6). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reber, R.W., & Van Gilder, G. (1982). Behavioral insights for supervision. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reich, M.H. (1985). Executive views from both sides of mentoring. Personnel, 62(3), 42-46. Reich, M.H. (1986). The mentor connection. Personnel, 63(2), 50-56. Reis, H.T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in intimacy in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,1204-1217. Reskin, B.F., & Hartmann, H.I. (Eds.). (1986). Women's work, men's work: Sex segregation on the job. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Rich, A. (1981). Integrity. In A. Rich, A wild patience has taken me this far: Poems, 1978-1981 (pp. 8-9). New York: W.W. Norton. Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist, 35, 902-910. Roche, G.R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57(1), 14-28. Rose, S.M. (1985a). Professional networks of junior faculty in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 533-547. Rose, S.M. (1985b). Same-and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63-74. Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I.K., & Broverman, D.M. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 287-295. Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. 217 Russell, D. (1982). The measurement of loneliness. In L A Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 81-I04). Toronto: John Wiley. Russell, D.W., & Cutrona, C. (1984). Social Provisions Scale. (Scale available from the authors, University of Iowa, Iowa City). Russell, D., Cutrona, C.E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss's typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,1313-1321. Russell, D., Peplau, LA., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,472-480. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1981). Toward a social psychology of relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 377-384. Sahli, N. (1978). Smashing: Women's relationships before the fall. Chrysalis, 8,17'-27. Schein, E.H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schroeder, K.G. (1989). Mentoring as work-related support: Relationship with employee outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3790-A. Shapiro, E.C., Haseltine, F.D., & Rowe, M.P. (1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and the "patron system". Sloan Management Review, 79(3), 51-58. Sherrod, D. (1987). The bonds of men: Problems and possibilities in close male relationships. In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies (pp. 213-240). Boston: Allen & Unwin. Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 164-186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sigal, M. (1987). Women's bonds and self-esteem. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Sisenwein, R.J. (1965). Loneliness and the individual as viewed by himself and others. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts, 25, 5379. Slocum, J.W., & Cron, W.L (1985). Job attitudes and performance during three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 126-145. Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1975). The female world of love and ritual: Relations between women in nineteenth-century America. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1,1-29. Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press. Statistics Canada. (1989). Universities: Enrolment and degrees 1987. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Education, Culture and Tourism Division, Postsecondary Education Section. (Catalogue No. 81-204). 218 Steinem, G. (1982). How to survive burn out, Reagan, and daily life: Create psychic turf. MS Magazine, Feb., 95-98. Stumpf, S.A., & Rabinowitz, S. (1981). Career stage as a moderator of performance relationships with facets of job satisfaction and role perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 202-218. Super, D.E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row. Surrey, J.L (1985). Self-in-relation: A theory of women's development (Working Paper No. 13). Work in Progress. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Papers Series. (Available from Wellesley College, Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies, Wellesley, MA 02181-8293). Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, LS. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Tiger, L. (1969). Men in groups. New York: Random House. Tiger, L. (1978). Introduction. In L. Tiger & H.T. Fowler (Eds.), Female hierarchies (pp. 1-20). Chicago: Beresford Book Service. Tiger, L, & Fowler, H.T. (Eds.). (1978). Female hierarchies. Chicago: Beresford Book Service. Toews, L. (1973). Self-hatred in college women: Sex-role stereotypes and same-sex affiliation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Trempe, J., Rigny, A.J., & Haccoun, R.R. (1985). Subordinate satisfaction with male and female managers: Role of perceived supervisory influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 44-47. Ulrich, D.N., & Dunne, H.P. (1986). To love and work: A systemic interlocking of family, workplace, and career. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Viega, J.F. (1976). Female career myopia. Human Resource Management, 15(4), 24-27. Wetstein Kraft, S.B. (1988). Same-sex social support and the enhancement of well-being. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1067-A. Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41 -78. Williams, D.G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587-600. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Woititz, J.G. (1989). The self-sabotage syndrome: Adult children in the workplace. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications. The Woodlands Group. (1980). Management development roles: Coach, sponsor and mentor. Personnel Journal, 59, 918-921. 219 Woolsey, LK. (1984). [Social networks: Bonds between women and between men.] Unpublished interview data. Woolsey, LK. (1987a). Bonds between women and between men, Part I: A review of theory. Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal, 73(1), 116-124. Woolsey, LK. (1987b). Bonds between women and between men, Part II: A review of research. Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal, 13(1), 125-136. Woolsey, L.K., Hakstian, A.R., & McBain, L L (1988a). [Bonds between women and between men: A factor-analytic study.] Unpublished raw data and analyses. Woolsey, L.K., Hakstian, A.R., & McBain, L L (1988b). [Dimensions of same-gender close social relationships.] Unpublished raw data and analyses. Woolsey, LK., & McBain, L L (1987a). Issues of power and powerlessness in all-woman groups. Women's Studies International Forum, 10, 579-588. Woolsey, LK., & McBain, L L (1987b). Women's networks: Strengthening the bonds of friendships between women. In K. Storrie (Ed.), Women: Isolation and bonding (pp. 59-76). Toronto: Methuen. Woolsey-Toews, L. (1975). Sex-roles, self-hatred and sisterhood. Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal, 7(1), 24-37. Wright, P.H. (1985). The Acquaintance Description Form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 39-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Yogev, S. (1983). Judging the professional women: Changing research, changing values. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 219-234. Zey, M.G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. APPENDIX A Measures 221 Cover Letter from the Author THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. CANADA V6T 1L2 Telephone: (604) 224-4579 [Date] Dear [Name of Potential Respondent]: I am conducting a survey of organizational relationships and career development for my doctoral dissertation research and I would greatly appreciate your help. Information you supply by completing a two-part questionnaire will help us develop a better understanding of which experiences and relationships in the workplace are related to enhanced career development. [Name of Organization] and a number of other organizations have chosen to participate in this project because they believe that they could benefit from the results of the study. Please note, though, that your individual responses to the questionnaire are anonymous and confidential. No one at [Name of Organization] will have access to your individual responses; only aggregated results will be provided to them. Because you will not be asked to identify yourself on the questionnaire, we request that you attach your name and address separately if you would like to receive a summary of the results of the study. We have divided the questionnaire into two approximately 30-minute parts, each with a slightly different focus. Part One is enclosed; Part Two will be mailed to you in a week. We hope that you will take the time to complete and return each part to us at UBC within a week of receiving it (business reply envelopes have been provided for that purpose) and that the questions will stimulate creative thinking about your own career development. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Yours sincerely, Laura-Lynne McBain, Doctoral Candidate Department of Counselling Psychology Note: Dr. Lorette K. Woolsey, Associate Professor, Department of Counselling Psychology, is the overall project supervisor. Ends. 222 Face Sheet Attached to Part One of the Questionnaire' Print your secret code here ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT SURVEY We are currently conducting a study designed to investigate which experiences and relationships on the job are related to enhanced career development and job satisfaction. Participation in this study will provide you with an opportunity to reflect upon factors which may be associated with your career development within your current organization. The survey has been divided into two parts. Part One (attached to this letter) has three sections. In the first section, you will be asked about the skills you have developed since joining your organization and about your opinions of your job and your organization as a whole. In Section Two, you will be asked about the roles that various people in your organization have played in helping you to learn your job or to develop your career. Finally, you will be asked a few questions about yourself and the positions you have held since joining your organization. Part One should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Part Two (to be mailed to you within a week) contains questions about your informal relationships with people at work and about the attitudes you hold about people in general. Part Two also should take about 30 minutes to complete. Your organization has expressed considerable interest in this study. Please note, though, that we are completely responsible for this survey and for all data collected. Your individual responses will remain anonymous and confidential — no one in your organization will have access to your personal responses; only aggregated results will be provided to your employer. Your participation is completely voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at any time or refuse to participate entirely. Should you choose to participate, your completed questionnaire will be taken as your consent to take part in the study. This survey has been designed to cover a broad range of relationships and interactions in the workplace. While some of the questions asked may not fit your experiences exactly, please answer every question using the numerical choice that comes closest to describing your experience. Some questions may seem repetitive. These questions are not designed to test your consistency. Rather, they are included in order to thoroughly survey your experiences and opinions. Your first reactions are best. Work as quickly as you can. Please try to answer every question. We are asking you to complete and return Part One before you receive Part Two. Our primary reason for doing this is that we feel the approximately 60 minutes required to complete both parts is too long for a single sitting. This procedure presents us with a special problem, however, because we need to be able to match the two parts of the survey while, at the same time, ensuring the anonymity of your responses. For this reason, we request that you make up and print your own six-character secret code in the space provided at the top right corner of the front page of Part One and of Part Two. You can create your own secret code by combining any six characters of your choice (letters and/or numbers), for example, DUST23. After printing your secret code in the top right corner of this page, keep a record of It so that you can print the same code on Part Two. 223 We hope that completing the questionnaire will be an interesting and useful experience for you and that you will return Part One to us within a week, using the enclosed business reply envelope. Thank you in advance for your participation. Lorette K. Woolsey, Associate Professor and Laura-Lynne McBain, Doctoral Candidate Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education The University of British Columbia 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. V6T1L2 Phone: (604) 224-4579 224 Instructions and Items for Part One of the Questionnaire' SECTION ONE: ABOUT YOUR CAREER Job Skill Development4 The particular skills that people develop depend, to a large extent, on assignments received and positions held. Please indicate how much you have been able to develop each of the skills listed below since joining your present organization. Use the following scale to indicate how much you have developed each skill listed: NOT AT ALL 0 1 2 3 4 A GREAT DEAL Your response can be any number between 0 and 4. Please place the appropriate number on the line to the right of each type of skill listed: a) verbal skill b) numerical skill c) technical skill d) writing skill e) diplomacy and tact f) long range planning skill g) short range planning skill h) group decision making skill i) independent decision making skill j) information processing skill k) public speaking skill I) negotiating skill m) mediation/peacemaking skill n) abstract reasoning skill o) legal skill : p) resource acquisition skill q) resource allocation skill 225 r) budgetary skill s) coordinating skill t) political skill u) creative skill v) interpersonal skill w) counselling skill x) liaison skill y) work assignment skill Acceptance by Co-workers, Conceptual Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development The following statements concern conditions that may apply to you or your job. Please indicate the degree to which the statements are true of your particular situation by circling the appropriate number between 1 and 7 below each statement. 1) People at work value my opinions. very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 2) I know how all the parts of the firm fit together, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 3) I believe that it is important to look at situations from the point of view of other employees when making decisions. very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 4) I lack credibility among my co-workers, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 5) I understand the reasons behind company policies, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 6) I believe that it is important to consider the impact my behaviour has on other employees, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 7) People at work listen to my ideas. very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 8) I am aware of the problems faced by other members of the organization, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 9) I believe that it is important to understand the specific concerns of other employees, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 226 10) I feel that I am accepted by my co-workers, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 11) 1 understand the 'bigger picture' facing the firm, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 12) I believe that it is important to understand the particular attitudes and values of other employees. very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 13) People at work do not respect my judgment, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 14) I understand the organization's overall goals, very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true 15) I believe that it is important to consider the individual needs of other employees when making decisions. very false 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very true Satisfaction With Progression The following statements concern your level of satisfaction with such things as promotion and salary. Please indicate your degree of satisfaction by circling the appropriate number between 1 and 5 below each statement. 16) How satisfied are you with your present salary? very unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 very satisfied 17) How satisfied are you with the rate at which your salary has increased since you joined your present organization? very unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 very satisfied 18) How satisfied are you with the rate at which you have been promoted since you joined your present organization? very unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 very satisfied 19) How satisfied are you with the kinds of assignments you have received since you joined your present organization? very unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 very satisfied 20) How satisfied are you with the rate at which you have developed professionally since you joined your present organization? very unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 very satisfied 227 Organizational Commitment* Listed below are a series of statements that concern the feelings you may have about the organization for which you work. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling the appropriate number between 1 and 7 below each statement.10 21) I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 22) I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 23) I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 24) I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 25) I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 26) This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 27) I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 28) I really care about the fate of this organization, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 29) For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree Job Satisfaction11 Each of the statements below is something that a person might say about his or her job. Please indicate your own personal feelings about your job by circling the appropriate number between 1 and 7 below each statement. 30) Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 31) I frequently think of quitting this job. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 32) I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 228 Now, please think of the other people in your organization who hold the same job you do. If no one has exactly the same job as you, think of the job which is most similar to yours. Please think about how accurately each of the statements below describes the feelings of those people about the job. It is quite all right if your answers here are different from when you described your own reactions to the job. Often different people feel quite differently about the same job. Once again, please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement by circling the appropriate number between 1 and 7 below each statement. 33) Most people on this job are very satisfied with the job. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 34) People on this job often think of quitting, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree 229 SECTION TWO: ABOUT YOUR CAREER EXPERIENCES Supportive Functions In this section of the questionnaire we would like you to: a) identify (using initials only) people in your organization who have provided you with a variety of organizational experiences, and b) answer a number of questions concerning your relationships with these people. Please remember that your Individual responses to this survey will remain anonymous and confidential. No one in your organization will have access to your personal responses. Since joining your present organization, have any people you have worked with (either currently or in the past), provided you with any of the following experiences? If yes, please place the INITIALS of up to 5 of these people in the spaces to the right of each statement. If no, go on to the next statement. The number of people you list will depend largely on the positions you have held and the length of time you have worked for your present organization. For this reason, you may or may not list very many people. Have any people you have worked with: 1) told others that you are competent? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 2) helped you learn things just by watching them? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 3) taught you about informal aspects of the organization such as norms or politics? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 4) discussed personal matters with you concerning yourself, your career, or your family? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 5) helped you learn job-related skills? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 6) made sure that other organizational members got to know you? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 230 7) provided you with encouragement or support? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 8) stopped you from getting into situations where you might not look your best? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) NOTE. If you would prefer to use secret code letters to identify people rather than listing their actual initials, please refer to the enclosed yellow "Personal Organizer" for instructions. 231 Network Table Beginning with the initials of the person listed most often on the previous page, start transferring initials to the blank spaces in the column titled Initials below. Continue adding initials of persons listed second most often, third most often, and so forth until you have listed up to (but no more than) 10 initials in the blank spaces under Initials. If you fill the 10 blank spaces before running out of initials, leave out the initials of the persons listed least often on the previous page. If you run out of initials before filling the 10 spaces, leave the extra spaces blank. Remember that the number of people you list will depend largely on the positions you have held and the length of time you have worked for your current organization -- there Is no "right" or "wrong" number of people to list. For each person listed, please answer the questions heading each of the remaining columns below. When responding to the question, "What is your relationship with this person?", please indicate whether the person listed is (or was) your supervisor, a subordinate, a co-worker or colleague, your supervisor's boss, etc. Please be as specific as possible. The first entry is an example. Initials Is this person male (M) or female (F)? What is your relationship with this person? How many years have you known this person? How old is this person? K.R. co-worker 1 30 PLEASE THINK ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PEOPLE LISTED ON THIS PAGE AS YOU COMPLETE THE REST OF THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE. 232 Supportive Behaviours 15 The following statements refer to activities that the people you have listed on the previous page may have engaged in on your behalf. Please respond to each statement twice: a) once while considering the extent to which one or more than one of the women you listed on the previous page engaged in that activity on your behalf, and b) once while considering the extent to which one or more than one of the men you listed on the previous page engaged in that activity on your behalf. In cases where more than one person in a) the group of women, or b) the group of men, has engaged in the activity on your behalf, please respond to the statement in terms of the person in each group who engaged in that behaviour most frequently (still giving separate answers for women and men, of course). For each statement, enter the appropriate number between 0 and 4 in the appropriate column for Women or Men. If you did not list any women on the previous page, leave the column under Women blank. If you did not list any men on the previous page, leave the column under Men blank. Please give a numerical response to every statement, using the following scale: NEVER FREQUENTLY Women Men 16 1. Recommended you to other members of the organization for a particular position, assignment, or opportunity 3. 4. 2. Observing him or her in meetings helped you learn how to manage people better Gave you assignments that developed your skills Could be counted on to discuss your personal concerns. 5. Helped you meet important people outside of your organization 6. Encouraged you to make the most of opportunities that came your way 7. Took the blame for some of your actions. 8. Taught you how to personally treat different people in the organization 9. Went out of his or her way to tell others about how you were performing 23 3 NEVER 0 1 2 3 4 FREQUENTLY Women Men 10. Watching him or her helped you deal more effectively with people 11. Provided the guidance necessary to help you learn your job 12. You were able to discuss personal matters with him or her 13. Introduced you to more senior members of your organization 14. Expressed confidence in you when you faced difficult decisions . .__ 15. Made sure that you did not work too closely with others until you could perform well in their presence 16. Told you who the powerful members of the organization were 17. Told others about your potential or competence 18. Watching him or her helped you improve your management skills 19. Provided opportunities for you to learn different aspects of your job 20. Served as a confidant when you needed one 21. Saw to it that you got to know as many people in the organization as possible 22. Encouraged you to carry on even when you had your doubts 23. Shielded you from situations where you would not look your best 24. Made sure you had an understanding of the informal aspects of the organization 25. Attempted to ensure that you were not passed over for desirable tasks or positions by telling others about you • 26. His or her behaviour provided you with an example of how to do things better 27. Ensured that you learned from your assignments 28. Took an interest in your personal concerns j NEVER 0 1 2 3 4 FREQUENTLY Women Men 29. Made opportunities available that provided high visibility for you 30. Expressed confidence in your abilities 31. Prevented your mistakes from becoming public knowledge 32. Told you about the political aspects of the organization 33. Made sure that other members of the organization became aware of your accomplishments 34. By watching how he or she did things, you learned how to perform your job more easily 35. Helped you learn your job by discussing hypothetical problems 36. Acted as a sounding board for your personal concerns 37. Arranged for you to attend functions where you could meet influential members of your organization 38. Made you feel confident that you would succeed at difficult tasks 39. Made sure that other organizational members did not find out about your mistakes 40. Told you about who could be trusted | | you have now completed Section Two of the survey 235 SECTION THREE: ABOUT YOURSELF Demographic Measures 1. What is your present age? 2. Sex: Male Female 3. What is your marital status? Never Married Married Common-Law/Living Together Separated, divorced, widowed 4. Please indicate the extent of your formal education by checking the appropriate category or catogories below: some high school high school graduation some college/university college diploma. Please specify undergraduate degree. Please specify some graduate study graduate degree. Please specify other. Please specify 5. What ethnic designation would you give yourself? Anglo-European/Canadian Chinese/Canadian East Indian/Canadian French/Canadian Native Indian/Canadian Other. Please specify 6. How many years have you been working for your present organization? Note: If you have worked at various operating sites, please indicate the total number of years at all sites taken together. years 7. Since entering your current profession or career, how many years of full-time employment have you had? Note: Please indicate the total number of years with all organizations for whom you have worked, including your current employer. years 8. How many different positions have you held since you first joined your present organization? positions 9. Since you first joined your present organization, how many times have you been promoted? times 10. What is your current annual salary? $ per year 11. What was your annual salary when you first joined your present organization? $ per year 236 12. How would you describe yourself in terms of the following job categories? (Please check those that apply) professional technical senior manager middle manager first line supervisor other. Please specify 13. What is the name of your present employer? Remember, only aggregate results will be provided to your employer, but returned surveys must be sorted by organization in order to make your responses as useful as possible. 14. Approximately how many men and women in your organization do you have regular contact with in performing your job? Number of men Number of women18 You will require some information from this part of the survey to assist you in completing Part Two. PLEASE JOT DOWN ON A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER, OR MAKE A NOTE ON YOUR YELLOW "PERSONAL ORGANIZER", THE INITIALS (AND CODE LETTERS, IF USED) OF ALL THE PEOPLE YOU LISTED IN THE TABLE ON PAGE 5 1 9 (these are the people who have provided you with various career experiences). KEEP THIS INFORMATION WITH YOU TO ASSIST IN THE COMPELTION OF PART TWO.20 *Please feel free to add any additional comments you may have on the back of this page. *Your completed Part One is to be folded and returned in the business reply envelope provided. Before sealing the envelope, PLEASE BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE MADE NOTE OF YOUR SECRET CODE so that you can print it on Part Two.21 *Thank you for completing Part One of the questionnaire! 237 Organizational Relationships and Career Development Survey Personal Organizer 22 Actual Initials: Code letters to use in Questionnaire: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. A. B. C. Example: K.R. J. K. L. M. N. Etc. Please keep this page with you as you complete Parts One and Two of the questionnaire. When you begin to identify people in your organization who have provided you with various organizational experiences (Part One), or with whom you have a more informal relationship (Part Two), place the actual initials of each person on this page and print only the code letter on the questionnaire. For example, print the initials K.R. on this page and print the letter A (which is the code letter for K.R.) in the appropriate spot in the questionnaire. Whenever you want to refer to K.R. in the questionnaire, use the letter A. Please retain this page for your own use only. Do not return it with the questionnaire. 238 Face Sheet Attached to Part Two of the Questionnaire Print your secret code here ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT SURVEY PART TWO This is the second and final part of the survey which was introduced to you about a week ago. The purpose of this part of the questionnaire is to: a) answer a number of questions concerning people in your organization with whom you relate on an informal basis, b) respond to some questions about the attitudes you hold about people in general, and c) answer some general questions about your overall feelings about your relationships at work. Please remember that your individual responses to this survey will remain completely anonymous and confidential — no one in your organization will have access to your personal responses. Again, please remember that this survey has been designed to cover a broad range of relationships and interactions in the workplace. While some of the questions asked may not fit your experiences exactly, please answer every question using the numerical choice that comes closest to describing your experience. Your first reactions are best. Work as quickly as you can. Please try to answer every question. For research purposes, it has been necessary to word some questions negatively. While some of these questions may seem awkward, please try to answer all of them as best you can. We hope that you found Part One interesting and that you will take the approximately 30 minutes required to complete Part Two. Please return your completed Part Two within one week in the enclosed business reply envelope. If you have not already done so, please PRINT YOUR SECRET CODE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED AT THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THIS PAGE. Thank you again for your cooperation. Lorette K. Woolsey, Associate Professor and Laura-Lynne McBain, Doctoral Candidate Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education The University of British Columbia 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1L2 Phone: (604) 224-4579 If you would like to receive a summary of the results of this study, please attach your name and address separately. 239 Instructions and Items for Part Two of the Questionnaire (see Footnote 3) Close Social Relationship Scale 2 4 SECTION ONE: YOUR INFORMAL RELATIONSHIPS AT WORK In this section of the questionnaire we would like you to: a) identify (using initials only) people in your organization with whom you relate on a more informal level, and b) answer a number of questions concerning your relationships with some of these people. Please remember our promise of confidentiality. No one In your organization will have access to your personal responses. Since joining your present organization, are there any people with whom you have related in any of the following ways? If yes, please place the INITIALS of up to 5 of these people in the spaces to the right of each statement (see Footnote 13). If no, go on to the next statement. There is no "right" or "wrong" number of people to list — the number you list will depend on many factors such as personal style and preferences, or the length of time you have worked for your present organization. For this reason, you may or may not list very many people. Are there any people in your organization: 1) with whom you have a lot in common (e.g., similar values, interests, tastes)? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 2) who provide you with a sense of comfort and encouragement? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 3) with whom you are able to express differences and still maintain a good relationship? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 4) with whom you have formed a close personal friendship that has stood the test of time? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 5) with whom you can discuss personal matters that you would share with few others? No If yes, a) b) c)__ d) e) 6) with whom you can be "wild and crazy" when the mood hits? No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) 240 NOTE. If you would prefer to use secret code letters to identify people rather than listing their actual initials, please refer to the yellow "Personal Organizer" that was enclosed with Part One. (See Footnote 14) Beginning with the initials of the person listed most often above, start transferring initials to the blank spaces in the column titled Initials on the page facing this one. Continue adding initials of persons listed second most often, third most often, and so forth until you have listed up to (but no more than) 10 initials in the blank spaces under Initials. If you fill the 10 spaces before running out of initials, leave out the initials of the persons listed least often above. If you run out of initials before filling the 10 spaces, leave the extra spaces blank. Remember that there is no "right" or "wrong" number of people to list. Network Table For each person listed in the column titled Initials, please answer the questions heading each of the remaining columns. When responding to the question, "What is your relationship with this person?", please indicate whether the person listed is (or was) your supervisor, a subordinate, a co-worker or colleague, your supervisor's boss, etc. Please be as specific as possible. The first entry is an example. Initials Is this person male (M) or female (F)? What is your relationship with this person? How many years have you known this person? How old is this person? K.R. co-worker 1 30 IMPORTANT NOTE. Please refer to the separate piece of paper (or yellow "Personal Organizer") on which you recorded the initials of persons listed in Part One of the questionnaire (persons who have provided you with various career experiences). Compare this list with the initials of the people you have listed above. PLACE A CHECK MARK IS) IN THE LEFT MARGIN BESIDE THE INITIALS OF THE PEOPLE WHO APPEAR ON BOTH LISTS. THE PEOPLE WHOSE INITIALS YOU CHECK ( N/) ARE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT AS YOU COMPLETE THE REST OF THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, 241 The following statements describe some of the things you may think, feel, or do in your relationships with the people you have IDENTIFIED WITH CHECK MARKS (N/) on the previous page. Even if some statements do not describe your experience exactly, please answer them according to the choice that comes closest. Please respond to each statement twice: a) once while considering how strongly you believe the statement to be true or not true of your relationships with one of more than one of thewomen you CHECKED on the previous page, and b) once while considering how strongly you believe the statement to be true or not true of your relationships with one or more than one of the men you CHECKED on the previous page. Different statements may refer to different relationships if you wish. For each statement, enter the appropriate number between 1 and 6 in the appropriate column for Women or Men. If you did not check any women on the previous page, leave the column under Women blank. If you did not check any men on the previous page, leave the column under Men blank.' 26 Please use the following scale: 1 = Definitely not true 2= Not true 3= Tends not to be true 4= Tends to be true True 6= Definitely true Women Men (checked) (checked) 1. Being alike in so many ways has made us friends 2. Sometimes when we are together, we laugh so hard that our sides ache 3. We do not share with each other our deepest feelings of pain or sorrow 4. I feel good when I am able to give to him/her 5. We respect each other's decisions even if we do not agree with them 6. I believe that our relationship will last a lifetime 7. The core, most important part of us is the same 8. We sometimes enjoy "bragging" together about how wonderful we are 242 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true Women Men (checked) (checked) 9. We do not talk in depth about the things we are struggling with 10. When she/he is really hurting, I hurt too 11. Differences between us do not interfere with our respect for each other 12. I feel less alone in the world because of our relationship 13. Having a similar life history has drawn us together 14. Sometimes when we are together we get a kick out of being really crude 15. We do not show each other our weaknesses 16. We are a comfort to each other 17. We do not find it easy to overlook differences between us 18. Our relationship has stood the test of time 19. Our relationship is growing because we seem to be developing along similar lines 20. We do silly things together just for fun 21. We are not able to tell each other about the things we are ashamed of 22. Talking with him/her about problems helps me to see things more clearly 23. We do not allow each other the freedom to grow and change.. 24. Our relationship has a unique and very special place in my life. 25. We are just the same kind of people 26. We have not shared the thrill of doing risky, dangerous or even illegal things 27. I do not feel free to cry with him/her when I need to 243 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true Women Men (checked) (checked) 28. We do things together that mean a lot to both of us 29. There is a special connection between us 30. We never try to put on a front with one another 31. Our similar interests are a strong bond between us 32. The exciting adventures we have had together have created an enduring tie between us 33. I cannot share the deepest, most personal part of myself with him/her 34. Even when I doubt myself, she/he still believes in me 35. We do not appreciate the fact that each of us excels at different things 36. We consistently think and feel the same way 37. When the mood hits us, we can be really loud and rowdy together 38. We do not turn to each other for advice about difficult personal decisions 39. We do not admire each other 40. A special tie between us is that we both react the same way to things 41. We let each other in on things that we would hide from almost anyone else 42. Sometimes we get really "wild and crazy" when we are together... 43. We do not openly express how much we appreciate each other... 44. We do not learn things from each other 45. I see a lot of myself in him/her 46. Sometimes the two of us like to stir up a little trouble just for the fun of it 244 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true Women Men (checked) (checked) 47. We are not open with each other about our deepest doubts and fears 48. Having the same tastes has helped us to develop our relationship 49. Sometimes we feel so confident when we are together that we do not care if other people disapprove or think we are silly 50. She/he knows more than almost anyone else about what I am really like . you have now completed Section One. Please go on to Section Two. 245 Bonds Between Women Scale' SECTION TWO: YOUR ATTITUDES ABOUT WOMEN IN GENERAL This section of the questionnaire is about your attitudes about women in general (not just about the women you work with). The questions refer to social relationships only and have no connection with sexual relationships or sexuality. Many of the statements refer to your own social relationships with women -- for example, relationships with women friends, family, neighbours, co-workers, and so forth. Other statements refer to your attitudes about women in general. Do not worry about whether you have the facts about how it is for all women ~ just indicate your own beliefs and opinions, how you feel personally, about these statements. Even if some statements do not fit your experiences exactly, please answer them using the choice that comes closest. Please answer according to how you actually think or feel, and not how you would like things to be or think they should be. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Mark each statement in the right margin, according to how strongly you believe that it is true or not true of your general attitudes and opinions about women. Write 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 to stand for the following: 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true 1. My relationships with women are a source of stability and consistency in my life 2. I would rather work for a man than a woman 3. I find women easier to work with than men 4. I feel a sense of pride in being a woman when I hear about women's achievements 5. My relationships with women do not meet any important emotional needs for me 6. Intellectual discussions are more satisfying with men than with women 7. Other women are a threat to me 8. I feel a certain sense of unity when working on a project with women that I do not feel when men are included 9. I feel complimented when I hear someone say something good about women 10. I would feel lonely without my relationships with women 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6 not true true not to to be be true true 11. I trust men more than women in positions of authority 12. It does not bother me to see other women in the limelight 13. It is easier to be myself with women than with men 14. If I have the chance, I try to help other women get ahead 15. Women are an important source of support for me 16. When I have to take on a tough job, I would rather have a man than a woman on my side 17. Undermining by other women often has caused problems for me at work 18. When men are present, a group feels less free and easy 19. When I hear about a woman who has overcome opposition in order to do what she believed to be right for her life, I feel proud to be a woman 20. I miss my women friends when I cannot see them as often as usual 21. I would rather ask a man than a woman for help 22. I often feel jealous of other women 23. When I want to try something adventurous or daring, I prefer women to men as companions 24. The success of women in positions of high authority and responsibility has not increased my own confidence 25. I do not seek out other women to talk to at work or school 26. I find it easier to work out disagreements with men than with women 27. Other women often have tried to make me look bad 28. When personal feelings are talked about in a group, I would rather the group be all women 29. I am not aware of any particular disadvantages faced by women 30. I do not understand myself better as a result of the time I have spent with women 31. I trust men more than other women 32. I am not resentful of women who have had better breaks in life than I have 2 4 7 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true 33. I prefer women to men as teammates 34. The success or failure of women in public life means nothing to me 35. My relationships with women are very important to me 36. As confidants, I prefer men to women 37. When men are present, the talk seems less warm and intimate 38. I cannot think of very many good things to say about women in general 39. Relationships with women are not a necessary part of my life 40. I find men more interesting than women 41. I seldom feel a sense of rivalry with other women 42. At social gatherings, I almost always seek out other women 43. I think it is great that some women are trying to open up new opportunities and freedoms for women 44. Women do not add to the quality of my life 45. I dislike working with women 46. Sometimes I feel jealous of women friends who attract all the men 47. When I want to break free from responsibilities, I would rather go out with women than men 48. I try to work with other women to improve the position of women in our society... 49. Women's opinions are less important to me than men's 50. I can trust women more than men when the situation calls for decisiveness and leadership 51. On the whole, men are more important to me than are other women 52. In general, it is more important to be loyal to women than to men 53. I am not at my best when I am with women 54. I have never been betrayed by another woman 55. There is a sense of challenge, strength, and comradeship when women get together that is weakened if men are included 248 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true 56. I prefer that men rather than women take the leadership in group discussions 57. I am jealous of women who have accomplished more than I have 58. I can count on women more than men to be there when I need them 59. In disagreements between people, I tend to side with men rather than with women 60. I prefer women to men as co-workers on a job . please go on to the last page Bonds Between Men Scale' SECTION TWO: YOUR ATTITUDES ABOUT MEN IN GENERAL This section of the questionnaire is about your attitudes about men in general (not just about the men you work with). The questions refer to social relationships only and have no connection with sexual relationships or sexuality. Many of the statements refer to your own social relationships with men - for example, relationships with men friends, family, neighbours, co-workers, and so forth. Other statements refer to your attitudes about men in general. Do not worry about whether you have the facts about how it is for all men - just indicate your own beliefs and opinions, how you feel personally, about these statements. Even if some statements do not fit your experiences exactly, please answer them using the choice that comes closest. Please answer according to how you actually think or feel, and not how you would like things to be or think they should be. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Make each statement in the right margin, according to how strongly you believe that it is true or not true of your general attitudes and opinions about men. Write 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 to stand for the following: 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true 1. My relationships with men are a source of stability and consistency in my life 2. I would rather work for a woman than a man 3. I find men easier to work with than women 4. My relationships with men do not meet any important emotional needs for me 5. Intellectual discussions are more satisfying with women than with men 6. I feel a certain sense of unity when working on a project with men that I do not feel when women are included 7. I would feel lonely without my relationships with men 8. I trust women more than men in positions of authority 9. It is easier to be myself with men than with women 10. Men are an important source of support for me 11. When I have to take on a tough job, I would rather have a woman than a man on my side 250 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true 12. When women are present, a group feels less free and easy 13. I miss my men friends when I cannot see them as often as usual 14. I would rather ask a woman than a man for help 15. When I want to try something adventurous or daring, I prefer men to women as companions 16. I do not seek out other men to talk to at work or school 17. I find it easier to work out disagreements with women than with men 18. When personal feelings are talked about in a group, I would rather the group be all men 19. I do not understand myself better as a result of the time I have spent with men 20. I trust women more than other men 21. I prefer men to women as teammates 22. My relationships with men are very important to me 23. As confidants, I prefer women to men 24. When women are present, the talk seems less warm and intimate 25. Relationships with men are not a necessary part of my life 26. I find women more interesting than men 27. At social gatherings, I almost always seek out other men 28. Men do not add to the quality of my life 29. I dislike working with men 30. When I want to break free from responsibilities, I would rather go out with men than women : 31. Men's opinions are less important to me than women's 32. I can trust men more than women when the situation calls for decisiveness and leadership 33. On the whole, women are more important to me than are other men 34. In general, it is more important to be loyal to men than to women 251 1= Definitely 2= Not 3= Tends 4= Tends 5= True 6= Definitely not true true not to to be true be true true 35. I am not at my best when I am with men 36. There is a sense of challenge, strength, and comradeship when men get together that is weakened if women are included 37. I prefer that women rather than men take the leadership in group discussions 38. I can count on men more than women to be there when I need them 39. In disagreements between people, I tend to side with women rather than with men 40. I prefer men to women as co-workers on a job . . . please go on to the last page 252 Loneliness at Work' SECTION THREE: YOUR OVERALL FEELINGS ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIPS AT WORK In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to respond to each of the following statements while considering your overall feelings about all of your relationships at work (this may include relationships with men and women, depending on your work setting). Please indicate how often you feel the way described in each of the following statements. Circle one number for each. Never Rarely Sometimes Often 1. I feel in tune with the people around me at work. 1 2 3 4 2. I lack companionship at work. 2 3 4 3. There is no one I can turn to at work. 2 3 4 4. I do not feel alone at work. 2 3 4 5. I feel part of a group of friends at work. 2 3 4 6. I have a lot in common with the people around me at work. 1 2 3 4 7. I am no longer close to anyone at work. 2 3 4 8. My interests and ideas are not shared by those around me at work. 1 2 3 4 9. I am an outgoing person at work. 2 3 4 10. There are people I feel close at work. 2 3 4 11. I feel left out at work. 2 3 4 12. My social relationships at work are superficial. 2 3 4 13. No one at work really knows me well. 2 3 4 14. I feel isolated from others at work. 2 3 4 15. I can find companionship at work when I want it. 2 3 4 16. There are people at work who really understand me. 2 3 4 17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn at work. 2 3 4 Never Rarely Sometimes Often 18. People at work are around me but not with me. 1 2 3 4 19. There are people I can talk to at work. 1 2 3 4 20. There are people I can turn to at work. 1 2 3 4 Thank you for completing the questionnaire! Please feel free to add any additional comments you may have on the back on this page. 254 Footnotes to Appendix A In six of the seven organizations in which data were collected, this cover letter from the author was enclosed with a separate cover letter from a senior personnel representative, Part One of the questionnaire, and a reply envelope. In one of the organizations (a post-secondary education institution), the information contained in this cover letter was incorporated into the cover letter from a senior personnel representative and the face sheets (from the author) attached to Parts One and Two of the questionnaire. This face sheet was attached to Part One of the questionnaires distributed to potential respondents in the last six organizations in which data were collected. The face sheet attached to Part One for the first organization in which data were collected (post-secondary education) was slightly different. For example, instructions for creating and recording a secret code were not included on the face sheet for the first organization. Instead, matching codes were pre-stamped on each face sheet. The instructions and items are listed verbatim in the exact order in which they appeared in the actual questionnaire. The format has been altered to meet the library requirements for this dissertation document. For the purpose of clarity, the name of each measure has been inserted in bold type just prior to the listing of the instructions and items for each measure. The names of the measures were not included in the actual questionnaire. 4The instructions and items for this scale (letters a-y) are from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (pp.185,197) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Reprinted by permission. T^he instructions and items for this scale (numbers 1, 4, 7,10, 13) are from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (pp. 186, 197) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Reprinted by permission. The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 2, 5, 8, 11, 14) are from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (pp. 185-186, 197) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Reprinted by permission. 7The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 3, 6, 9, 12, 15) are from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (pp. 185, 197) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Reprinted by permission. ®The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 16-20) are from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (pp. 185,197) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Reprinted by permission. T^he instructions and items for this scale (numbers 21-29) are adapted from "The Measurement of Organizational Commitment" by R.T. Mowday, R.M. Steers, and LW. Porter, 1979, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, p. 228. Copyright 1979 by the Academic Press, Inc. Adapted by permission. 255 These instructions for the Organizational Commitment items are from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship with Employee Outcomes (p. 197) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Reprinted by permission. 1 1 The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 30-34) are adapted from 'The Job Diagnostic Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnosis of Jobs and the Evaluation of Job Redesign Projects" (pp. 5,7) by J.R. Hackman and G.R. Oldham, 1974, JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4,148. (Ms.No. 810). The Job Diagnostic Survey is not copyrighted and therefore may be used without permission from the authors (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). 12 The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 1-8) are adapted from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship with Employee Outcomes (pp. 84,198) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Adapted by permission. 13 On the actual questionnaire, the following words and blank spaces appeared to the right of each statement: No If yes, a) b) c) d) e) These words and blank spaces have been placed below each statement in the present document in order to meet library format requirements. ^References to the yellow "Personal Organizer" were added to the questionnaire after distribution in the first organization in which data were collected (post-secondary education) to address the concerns of those respondents who did not want to list the actual initials of their co-workers. 1^The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 1 -40) are adapted from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (pp. 186-188,199) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Adapted by permission. 1 6 In half of the questionnaires distributed to potential respondents of each gender, the word Women headed the first column and the word Men appeared over the second column. In the other half of distributed questionnaires, these words were reversed: Men headed the first column and Women headed the second column. The placement of the words women and men in the instructions for completing the columns also was the reverse of the order shown in this Appendix. That is, all references to men occurred first and references to women appeared second, in correspondence with the order in which these words appeared over the columns in the other half of distributed questionnaires. 1 7 Item numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12 and 13 are adapted from Mentoring as Work-Related Support: Relationship With Employee Outcomes (p. 199) by K.G. Schroeder, 1988, Vancouver, B.C.: Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia. Copyright 1988 by Klaus G. Schroeder. Adapted by permission. 18This item was added to the questionnaires distributed in the last six organizations in which data were collected. This item served as a second check on the number of same- and cross-gender persons in the respondent's work environment. 1®The Network Table which follows the Supportive Functions section of the questionnaire was on page 5 of the actual questionnaire but was untitled. 256 20 This paragraph was adapted for the questionnaires distributed in the last six organizations in order to accommodate the addition of the "Personal Organizer." 21 This sentence was added to the questionnaires distributed in the last six organizations to accommodate the addition of the secret code matching procedure. 22 This "Personal Organizer" appeared on a separate yellow sheet of paper. It was enclosed with Part One of the questionnaires distributed in the last six organizations in which data were collected. In the first organization, this "Personal Organizer" was enclosed with the second follow-up letter. 23 This face sheet was attached to Part Two of the questionnaires distributed to potential respondents in the last six organizations in which data were collected. It is somewhat different from the face sheet that was attached to the questionnaires distributed in the first organization. For example, instructions for printing a secret code on the face sheet were not included for the first organization because matching codes had been pre-stamped on the first organization's questionnaires. 24 The instructions and items listed in Section One: Your Informal Relationships at Work are adapted from an earlier version of the Close Social Relationships Scale [Dimensions of same-gender close social relationships] by LK. Woolsey, A.R. Hakstian, and L.L. McBain, 1988b, unpublished raw data and analyses. A fluorescent rectangle was placed above the words Important Note in the questionnaires distributed in the last six organizations to ensure that respondents saw these important instructions (some respondents in the first organization did not respond to these instructions and so their responses to the rest of the Close Social Relationship Scale had to be excluded from data analyses). In addition, the reference in this note to the yellow "Personal Organizer" was added for the last six organizations. 28The following reminder statement was placed over the response columns on a sticker of contrasting colour in the questionnaires distributed in the last six organizations (for the same reason as that stated in Footnote 25): Please remember to respond to each statement in this section (statements 1-50) while considering only those persons identified with check marks (\/) on the previous page (these will be people who were listed both in Part One of the questionnaire and on the previous page). 27 The instructions and items listed in Section Two: Your Attitudes About Women in General were included only on the women's form of the questionnaire. They are adapted from an earlier version of the Bonds Between Women Scale [Bonds between women and between men: A factor-analytic study] by LK. Woolsey, A.R. Hakstian, and L.L. McBain, 1988a, unpublished raw data and analyses. 28The instructions and items listed in Section Two: Your Attitudes About Men in General were included only on the men's form of the questionnaire. They are adapted from an earlier version of the Bonds Between Men Scale [Bonds between women and between men: A factor-analytic study] by LK. Woolsey, A.R. Hakstian, and LL McBain, 1988a, unpublished raw data and analyses. 257 3The instructions and items for this scale (numbers 1 -20) are adapted from "The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence" by D. Russell, LA. Peplau, and C.E. Cutrona, 1980, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, p. 475. Copyright 1980 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted by permission. APPENDIX B Characteristics of the Respondent Sample Table B-1 Number of Distributed, Returned, Excluded, and Retained Questionnaires Distributed Returned Excluded Retained Parts Part 1 Part 2 Missing Organization Parts Part 1 Part 2 Industrial sector 1 & 2 only only Total % data Tenure not specified 1 & 2 only only Total % Women Public Post-secondary education (1) 545 148 26 2 176 32.3 5 13 0 135 23 0 158 29.0 Post-secondary education (2) 122 48 11 0 59 48.4 2 4 0 43 10 0 53 43.4 Private Computer systems design & consultation 8 7 0 0 7 87.5 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 87.5 Equipment sales & service 6 3 0 0 3 50.0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 50.0 Professional accounting 10 7 1 0 8 1 80.0 0 0 0 7 1 0 a 80.0 Telecommunications broadcasting 21 16 0 0 16 76.2 0 0 0 16 0 0 . 16 76.2 Crown corporation Utilities 13 11 1 0 12 92.3 0 0 0 11 1 0 12 92.3 Not specified 0 1 0 1 2 NA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 NA Totals 725 241 39 3 283 39.0 7 17 2 222 35 0 257 35.5 Men Public Post-secondary education (1) 567 113 17 1 131 23.1 3 9 0 103 16 0 119 21.0 Post-secondary education (2) 110 37 5 0 42 38.2 2 2 0 35 3 0 38 34.6 Private Computer sytems design & consultation 9 7 0 0 7 77.8 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 66.7 Equipment sales & service 4 3 1 0 4 100.0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 100.0 Professional accounting 10 5 1 0 6 60.0 0 0 0 5 1 0 6 60.0 Telecommunications broadcasting 17 11 1 0 12 70.6 0 1 0 10 1 0 11 64.7 Crown corporation Utilities 14 12 1 0 13 92.9 0 0 0 12 1 0 13 92.9 Not specified 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA Totals 731 188 26 2 216 29.6 5 13 1 175 22 0 197 27.0 Table B-2 Age and Organizational Tenure of Respondents and Potential Respondents Descriptive Potential variable Respondents respondents Women Age n 257 723 M 35.62 37.43 SD 8.10 8.74 Years of tenure n 256 725 M 6.00 5.43 SD 4.78 4.22 Men Age n 197 730 M 36.13 37.46 SD 8.49 9.07 Years of tenure n 197 731 M 5.38 5.86 SD 4.22 4.44 Note. Due to missing data for age and tenure, some of the sampe sizes reported in this table are somewhat smaller than the total sample sizes reported in the text. 261 Table B-3 Levels of Education of Respondents Highest level of education Number of respondents Percentage of respondents Women Up to high school graduation Some college, university, or vocational training College diploma Undergraduate degree/ some graduate work Graduate degree Total 16 33 34 128 46 257 6.2 12.8 13.2 49.8 17.9 100.0 Men Up to high school graduation Some college, university, or vocational training College diploma Undergraduate degree/ some graduate work Graduate degree Total 4 22 36 84 51 197 2.0 11.2 18.3 42.6 25.9 100.0 Table B-4 Job Categories of Respondents 262 Number of Percentage of Job category respondents respondents Women Single category Professional 83 32.3 Technical 51 19.8 Senior manager 6 2.3 Middle manager 20 7.8 First line supervisor 20 7.8 Other or not specified 11 4.3 Multiple categories Professional/technical 15 5.8 Professional senior manager 3 1.2 Professional middle manager 16 6.2 Professional first line supervisor 8 3.1 Professional plus 2 additional job categories 11 4.3 Technical senior manager 0 0.0 Technical middle manager 3 1.2 Technical first line supervisor 2 0.8 Middle manager/first line supervisor 4 1.6 Other combinations of job categories 4 1.6 Total 257 100.0 Men Single category Professional 60 30.5 Technical 43 21.8 Senior manager 6 3.1 Middle manager 11 5.6 First line supervisor 6 3.1 Other or not specified 0 0.0 Multiple categories Professional/technical 20 10.2 Professional senior manager 10 5.1 Professional middle manager 8 4.1 Professional first line supervisor 6 3.1 Professional plus 2 additional job categories 15 7.6 Technical senior manager 2 1.0 Technical middle manager 5 2.5 Technical first line supervisor 1 0.5 Middle manager/first line supervisor 1 0.5 Other combinations of job categories __3 1.5 Total 197 100.0 263 Table B-5 Marital Status of Respondents Marital Status Number of respondents Percentage of respondents Never married Married Common-law/living together Separated, divorced, widowed Not specified Total Women 66 136 25 29 _1 257 25.7 52.9 9.7 11.3 0.4 100.0 Men Never married 46 23.4 Married 120 60.9 Common-law/living together 21 10.7 Separated, divorced, widowed 10 5.1 Not specified __0 0.0 Total 197 100.0 264 Table B-6 Ethnic Designations of Respondents Number of Percentage of Ethnic designation respondents respondents Women Anglo-European/Canadian 208 80.9 Asian/Canadian 21 8.2 Indo/Canadian 3 1.2 French/Canadian 6 2.3 Native Indian/Canadian 2 0.8 Canadian 4 1.6 American 3 1.2 Other 7 2.7 Not specified _3 1.2 Total 257 100.0 Men Anglo-European/Canadian 169 85.8 Asian/Canadian 7 3.6 Indo/Canadian 2 1.0 French/Canadian 3 1.5 Native Indian/Canadian 1 0.5 Canadian 4 2.0 American 1 0.5 Other 6 3.1 Not specified _4 2.0 Total 197 100.0 APPENDIX C Preliminary Analyses 266 This appendix is divided into two major sections. The first section contains the results of the preliminary analyses conducted to prepare the data gathered in the current study for the hypothesis-testing analyses presented in Chapter IV (Results). The preliminary analyses include procedures for handling missing data and factor analyses performed to explore the factor structures of key variables used in the study. The second section is a discussion of the results of the factor analyses conducted with the career- and job-related outcome variables, homosocial attitudes data, and relationship provisions data. A. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSES This section begins with a discussion of how missing data were handled for all variables in the current study. Following that, the results of the factor analyses performed on the correlation matrices for 10 career- and job-related outcome variables, on the correlation matrices for the items and scales of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale, and on the correlation matrices for the items of the Close Social Relationships Scale are reported. Descriptive statistics for the 10 career- and job-related variables, the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale, and the Close Social Relationships Scale are presented after the discussion of the factor analyses for each of these sets of variables. The supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure is discussed and descriptive statistics for that measure are presented in the final subsection. 1. Missing Data The Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) review of methods of handling missing data guided the decisions made in regard to missing data in the present study. As discussed in the first section of Chapter IV (Results), and outlined in Table B-1 (Appendix B), 12 questionnaires (7 from women, 5 from men) were excluded from all analyses because of a very large number of missing responses. These excluded questionnaires were missing approximately 20% to 100% of the items on the majority of the individual scales. Questionnaires from respondents who returned only Part One of the questionnaire were included in analyses as long as Part One was completed satisfactorily. 267 However, questionnaires from respondents who returned only Part Two were excluded from all analyses because information about the gender and organization of the respondent was contained only in Part One of the questionnaire. Some of the questionnaires that were retained for analyses were missing responses for some individual items. It was decided to fill many of the resulting empty slots in the data matrix with means estimated from all available data. Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) state that an advantage of this procedure is that the mean for each variable is not affected by these missing data substitutions; a disadvantage is that the variance of a variable with means inserted for several missing values is lessened, and this decreased variance results in a reduction in the size of the correlation the variable has with other variables. The amount of reduction in variance and in the size of the correlation depends on how many missing values were plugged with means. A compromise suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) and by Marascuilo and Levin (1983) is to use demographic or classification attributes for the respondent to aid in estimating the means. For the current study, rather than inserting the overall mean for a given missing value, item means were calculated separately for women and men within each organization, thereby reducing potential distortions to the means related to gender and organizational climate. Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) state that "there are as yet no firm guidelines for how much missing data can be tolerated for a sample of a given size" (p.61). In the absence of clearly defined guidelines for acceptable levels of missing data and missing data substitutions, the overall decision rule adopted for the present study was to insert item means for missing values if a respondent had answered at least 80% of the items for a particular measure (for measures 5 to 40 items long). Then, in order to retain for analyses as many complete data sets for as many respondents as possible, some exceptions were made to this overall decision rule. In some cases, if up to 40% of the items were missing for a given measure no longer than 12 items long, the blanks were plugged with item means if the rest of the measures for that respondent had very few or no missing values. For example, if a respondent answered 3 out of 5 Job Satisfaction items (60.0%) or 7 out of 9 Organizational Commitment items (77.8%) and only 1 item was missing on one other scale, then 268 item means were substituted for all of the missing values. However, if a respondent consistently completed less than 80% of the items for many different measures, then no substitutions were made for any missing values on those measures with less than 80% of the items completed. For two of the 1-item scales (Average Number of Promotions Per Year and Average Annual Salary Increase) means also were inserted for missing values. Not to have done so would have meant a substantial reduction in sample size (up to 16 female respondents and 11 male respondents) for analyses involving career- and job-related outcome variables. Because the frequency distributions for Average Number of Promotions Per Year and Average Annual Salary Increase were positively skewed for women and men in some of the organizations, the means for these variables were estimated separately by gender, by organization, and wherever possible, by number of years of organizational tenure. For example, a male respondent with five years organizational tenure was missing a score for Average Annual Salary Increase. The mean used to fill this blank was estimated from the valid scores for the six male respondents with five years tenure in that particular organization. In most cases, these calculations involved the scores of respondents with exactly the same number of years of organizational tenure as the respondent with the missing value, or with no more than plus or minus one year organizational tenure from the respondent. In all cases, means were calculated from the valid scores of at least four other respondents of the same gender in the same organization. For all variables except Average Number of Promotions Per Year, the item means inserted for missing values were rounded up to two decimal places. For Average Number of Promotions Per Year, the means used for missing data substitutions were rounded up to three decimal places. The number of missing data substitutions made for each of the measures are listed in the tables which summarize the descriptive statistics for the measures (Tables C-1, C-2, C-8, C-14, C-15, and C-17). 2. Factor Analyses Involving Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables Separate scores were obtained on 10 different employee outcome measures. See Tables C-1 and C-2 for descriptive statistics obtained by women and men on each of these measures. Table C-1 Descriptive Statistics tor 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Measures (Women)' Scale Number of respondents Number of items Potential range of scores Number of missing responses plugged with item means Mean Standard deviation Coefficient alpha Job Skill Development 256 25 0 to 100 12 58.35 18.86 .93 Interpersonal Skill Development 255 5 5 to 35 0 29.71 4.10 .82 Conceptual Skill Development 254 5 5 to 35 1 25.20 5.24 .78 Job Satisfaction 256 5 5 to 35 6 23.82 5.67 .77 Organizational Commitment 256 9 9 to 63 7 42.91 10.24 .90 Satisfaction With Progression 254 5 5 to 25 11 16.43 4.50 .78 Acceptance by Co-workers 255 5 5 to 35 1 29.97 3.82 .76 Loneliness at Work 222 20 20 to 80 16 37.34 10.81 .93 Average Number of Promotions/Yr. 256 1 NA 2 .27 .37 NA Average Annual Salary Increase 255 1 NA 15 1786.96 1751.08 NA The sample includes women respondents from all three types of organizations (pubic sector, private sector, and Crown corporation). to Table C-2 Descriptive Statistics for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Measures (Men)' Scale Number of respondents Number of items Potential range of scores Number of missing responses plugged with item means Mean Standard deviation Coefficient alpha Job Skill Development 197 25 0 to 100 6 54.50 18.60 .94 Interpersonal Skill Development 197 5 5 to 35 1 28.96 4.09 .83 Conceptual Skill Development 197 5 5 to 35 1 24.72 5.46 .82 Job Satisfaction 197 5 5 to 35 4 24.17 5.95 .80 Organizational Commitment 197 9 9 to 63 3 43.33 10.83 .90 Satisfaction With Progression 197 5 5 to 25 3 15.61 4.24 .72 Acceptance by Co-workers 197 5 5 to 35 1 29.20 4.06 .80 Loneliness at Work 173 20 20 to 80 10 40.35 10.50 .92 Average Number of Promotions/Yr. 197 1 NA 3 .28 .40 NA Average Annual Salary Increase 197 1 NA 8 1939.71 1789.85 NA The sample includes men respondents from all three types of organizations (pubic sector, private sector, and Crown corporation). 271 Prior to conducting the factor analyses, a series of procedures were employed to determine if the data obtained from respondents in each of the seven participating organizations could be pooled. First, the seven organizations were logically grouped into three categories, according to the industrial sector from which each organization had been drawn (see Table B-1 [Appendix B] for a detailed breakdown of the overall number of respondents from each organization within each sector). The three categories and the organizations included within them were: Public sector. The two post-secondary education institutions were included in this category. Private sector. Four organizations in the following industries were subsumed by this category: computer systems design and consultation, equipment sales and service, professional accounting, and telecommunications broadcasting. Crown corporation. The organization in the utilities industry was classified separately as a Crown corporation. Beginning with separate analyses for women and men, the homogeneity of the variance -covariance matrices and the differences between the means obtained for the 10 career- and job-related outcome measures were tested for significance to determine if the data gathered from the three types of organizations (public sector, private sector, Crown corporation) could be pooled for the factor analyses. For women in the three types of organizations, (public sector, n = 175; private sector, n = 32; Crown corporation, n = 11) significant differences were noted between the variance-covariance matrices [F (110.0, 2437.68) = 1.44, p < .005, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means using both the maximum latent root approach and the MANOVA likelihood ratio test [F(20,412) = 4.37, p < .001 ]. Even though none of the 30 post hoc pairwise contrasts was 272 significant, the career- and job-related outcome data for women in the three types of organizations could not be pooled for the factor analyses because of the significant differences noted in the variance-covariance matrices and in the overall MANOVA. Only the data from the largest group (public sector, n = 175) were used in the subsequent factor analyses. Using the Bartlett-Box homogeneity of dispersion test, it was determined that the variance-covariance matrices for men in the three types of organizations (public sector, n = 137; private sector, n = 24; Crown corporation, n = 12) were not significantly different [F (110.0, 3109.60) = 1.12, p > .05]. However, significant differences between the means obtained by men were noted using both the maximum latent root approach and the MANOVA likelihood ratio test [F (20,322) = 4.14, p < .001]. Therefore, because of nonsignificant differences between the variance-covariance matrices and significant differences between the means, the data for men from the three types of organizations (n = 173) were pooled at the covariance matrix level, rather than at the raw score level. It should be noted that only 1 of the 30 post hoc pairwise contrasts was significant (private sector men received significantly higher scores on Average Salary Increase Per Year than public sector men). The data for women and men could not be pooled for the factor analyses because of significant differences in the variance-covariance matrices and the means obtained for the 10 career-and job-related measures when (a) comparing women in the public sector (n = 175) with men in the public sector (n = 137), and (b) when comparing women in the public sector (n = 175) with men in all three types of organizations (n = 173). For the comparison outlined above in (a), significant differences were obtained between the variance-covariance matrices [F (55,275875) = 1.57, p < .01, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means [F (10,301) = 1.96, p <.05, using Hotelling's T 2 test for two groups]. None of the 10 post hoc pairwise contrasts was significant. Similar results were obtained for the comparison outlined in (b): significant differences were noted between the variance-covariance matrices [F (55,386494) = 1.49, p < .05, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means [F (10,337) = 2.15, p < .05, using Hotelling's T 2 test for two groups]. None of the 10 post hoc pairwise contrasts was significant. 273 In summary, only the data obtained from women respondents in the public sector organizations (n = 175) were used in investigations of the factor structure of the women's career-and job-related variables. The career- and job-related outcome data obtained from men in all three types of organizations (n = 173) were pooled at the covariance matrix level in preparation for the men's factor analysis. Three methods were used to determine the number of factors to extract. First, it was hypothesized that these da^ a would produce a three-factor structure similar to that found by Schroeder (1988/1989) in his principal component analyses of a similar set of measures. Second, principal component analyses were performed on the pooled within groups correlation matrix for men (n = 173, see Table C-3) and the correlation matrix for women (n = 175, see Table C-3) for the 10 career- and job-related outcomes. Using the Kaiser-Guttman criterion of retaining for rotation only those components with eigenvalues greater than unity, a three-factor solution was suggested for both women and men. For women, three eigenvalues greater than unity were obtained: 3.31, 1.70, and 1.08; for men, three eigenvalues greater than unity also were obtained: 3.78,1.29, and 1.17. Maximum likelihood (ML) factor analysis with associated significance tests were employed as a third method of determining the number of factors to extract. Maximum likelihood factor analyses (with a minimum of two and a maximum of five factor solutions and hypothesis tests requested) were performed on the pooled within groups correlation matrix for men (n = 173, see Table C-3) and on the correlation matrix for women (n = 175, see Table C-3) for the 10 career- and job-related outcomes. For women, the probabilities associated with the chi-square goodness-of-fit significance tests were .003 for three factors and . 109 for four factors, indicating that a four-factor solution would be a better fit. For men, the probabilities for three (p = .040) and four (p = .589) factors indicated that a three-factor solution would be a marginal fit. The information obtained from the above three sources (previous research, Kaiser-Guttman criterion, and significance tests associated with maximum likelihood factor analysis) suggested that a three-factor solution would provide the best fit overall. Therefore, maximum likelihood factor Table C-3 Interscale Correlation Matrices for the 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Measures Scale Scale JS IS CS JO OC SP AC LW PY SI Job Skill Development (JS) - .09 .36 .20 .28 .36 .14 -.33 .18 .14 Interpersonal Skill Development (IS) .38 - .23 .02 .13 .14 .19 -.14 -.08 -.07 Conceptual Skill Development (CS) .35 .46 - .30 .42 .39 .26 -.28 .14 .16 Job Satisfaction (JO) .27 .18 .27 - .68 .55 .40 -.33 .05 .06 Organizational Commitment (OC) .35 .31 .38 .64 - .47 .29 -.24 .10 .04 Satisfaction with Progression (SP) .33 .23 .39 .61 .51 -- .23 -.38 .31 .31 Acceptance by Co-workers (AC) .31 .18 .32 .46 .45 .47 - -.42 -.01 .07 Loneliness at Work (LW) -.29 -.17 -.21 -.42 -.41 -.42 -.52 — -.13 -.08 Average Number of Promotions/Yr. (PY) .16 .13 .08 .19 .09 .33 .16 -.05 - .68 Average Annual Salary Increase (SI) .15 .17 .18 .11 .12 .25 .11 -.15 .36 -Note. Interscale correlations coefficients above the diagonal are for public sector women only (n = 175). The pooled within groups correlation matrix for men in all three groups (public sector, private sector, Crown corporation; n = 173) is below the diagonal. to -J 275 analyses for three factors were performed on the pooled within groups correlation matrix for men (n = 173, see Table C-3) and on the correlation matrix for women (n = 175, see Table C-3) for the 10 career- and job-related outcomes. The results of the best solutions from among the orthogonal (varimax) and oblique (Harris-Kaiser) transformations performed are summarized in Table C-4 (for women) and Table C-5 (for men). The best solution for women resulted from an oblique transformation by the Harris-Kaiser method (c = .50); the best solution for men also was obtained by an oblique (Harris-Kaiser) transformation (c = .25). As can be seen from the results in Tables C-4 and C-5, three comparable factors were obtained for women and men. A conceptual interpretation of each factor was made based on the conceptual content of the scales which achieved primary-factor pattern coefficients greater than or equal to .30 on that factor. Factor I was labelled Skill Development. For men, this factor was purely a skill development factor, with coefficients greater than or equal to .30 occurring only for the three skill development scales: Job Skill Development (.42), Interpersonal Skill Development (.68), and Conceptual Skill Development (.60). For women, a more descriptive label for this scale would be Contextual Skill Development. The three skill development scales formed the core of the factor, with primary-factor pattern coefficients of .51, .43, and .61 obtained by Job Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development, and Conceptual Skill Development, respectively. However, for women, four other scales related to the context in which these skills are developed also obtained coefficients greater than or equal to .30 on this factor: Loneliness at Work (-.44), Satisfaction With Progression (.38), Organizational Commitment (.30), and Acceptance by Co-workers (.30). The second factor was labelled Affective Outcomes. The four scales which formed the core of this factor for both women and men were (primary-factor pattern coefficients in parentheses): Job Satisfaction (.99 for women, .86 for men), Organizational Commitment (.57 for women, .70 for men), Satisfaction With Progression (.40 for women, .65 for men), and Acceptance by Co-workers (.29 for women, .58 for men). Acceptance by Co-workers was included for women because the coefficient of .29 was so close to the cutoff of .30 and including it made the women's factor more comparable to 276 Table C-4 Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Matrix for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables (Women3) Factor Variable I Skill II Affective III Advancement Development Outcomes Outcomes h2 Job Skill Development .51 .00 .13 .30 Interpersonal Skill Development .43 -.13 -.15 .17 Conceptual Skill Development .61 .07 .08 .42 Job Satisfaction .03 .99 .01 1.00 Organizational Commitment .30 .57 .01 .53 Satisfaction with Progression .38 .40 .29 .53 Acceptance by Co-workers .30 .29 - .05 .24 Loneliness at Work -.44 -.16 -.05 .28 Average Number of Promotions/Yr .02 -.01 .84 .72 Average Annual Salary Increase .00 .02 .80 .64 Primary-factor intercorrelations I II III I II .35 III .14 .05 Note. The primary-factor pattern coefficients reported above resulted from a maximum likelihood factor analysis followed by an oblique transformation by the Harris-Kaiser method (c = .50). an = 175 (public sector women only). 277 Table C-5 Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Matrix for 10 Career- and Job-Related Outcome Variables (Mena) Factor Variable I Skill Development II Affective Outcomes III Advancement Outcomes h2 Job Skill Development .42 .20 .09 .32 Interpersonal Skill Development .68 -.03 .09 .47 Conceptual Skill Development .60 .16 .01 .47 Job Satisfaction -.12 .86 .02 .69 Organizational Commitment .16 .70 -.08 .59 Satisfaction with Progression .07 .65 .22 .59 Acceptance by Co-workers .09 .58 .03 .39 Loneliness at Work -.06 -.56 .06 .33 Average Number of Promotions/Yr -.05 .02 .86 .73 Average Annual Salary Increase .16 .01 .40 .21 Primary-factor intercorrelations I II III I II .41 III .15 .25 Note. The primary-factor pattern coefficients reported above resulted from a maximum likelihood factor analysis followed by an oblique transformation by the Harris-Kaiser method (c = .25). an = 173 (public sector, private sector, and Crown corporation). 278 the men's. For men, Loneliness at Work was also a defining scale on this factor, with a coefficient of -.56. Factor III was named Advancement Outcomes, because the following two scales obtained coefficients greater than or equal to .30 for both women and men: Average Number of Promotions Per Year (.84 for women, .86 for men) and Average Annual Salary Increase (.80 for women, .40 for men). Individual factor scores on each of the three derived factors were computed for subsequent use in testing the hypotheses associated with Research Questions 4 and 5. For men, the factor score coefficient matrix obtained by the regression method subsequent to the men's three-factor maximum likelihood factor analysis described earlier in this subsection was post-multiplied by the observed data matrix for the same 173 male respondents to obtain factor scores on each of the three factors for each of the 173 respondents in the three types of organizations. This procedure was modified for the women, using a technique described by Hakstian and Bay (undated). In order to obtain factor scores for women in the private sector and Crown corporation who were not included in the women's factor analysis, the factor score coefficient matrix obtained by the regression method following the women's three-factor maximum likelihood factor analysis reported earlier was post-multiplied by the observed data matrix for a total of 218 women respondents. This total included the original 175 public sector women as well as an additional 32 private sector women and 11 Crown corporation women. The factor scores obtained for women and men were standardized to a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. 3. Factor Analyses Involving Homosocial Attitudes Data (Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale [Bonds]) In preparation for conducting factor analyses, the same series of procedures as those outlined in the previous subsection for the career- and job-related outcomes were employed to determine if Bonds data obtained from respondents in the three types of organizations (public sector, private sector, Crown corporation) could be pooled for factor-analytic purposes. Separate 279 analyses were conducted for women and men because of differences in the item content of the scales (i.e., there are two extra scales for women: Jealousy and Identification). Scale scores were calculated for each of the five individual scales of the 60-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the three individual scales of the 40-item Bonds Between Men Scale described in Chapter III (Method). The homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices and the differences between the means obtained on these scales by women (public sector, n = 179; private sector, n = 33; Crown corporation, n = 11) and men (public sector, n = 136; private sector, n = 22; Crown corporation, n = 12) in the three types of organizations were tested for significance using the Bartlett-Box homogeneity of dispersion test, the maximum latent root approach, and the MANOVA likelihood ratio test. For both women and men, the results of the Bartlett-Box procedure indicated that the variance-covariance matrices were not significantly different for the three organizational groups [for women, F (30.0, 2711.19) = 1.13, p > .05; for men, F(12.0, 4595.92) < 1,p > .05]. Nonsignificant differences were obtained between the means as well, using both the maximum latent root approach and the MANOVA likelihood ratio test [F(10,432 = 1.00, p > .05, for women; F (6,330) < 1, p > .05, for men]. Because of these nonsignificant differences, data from the three types of organization were pooled for women (n = 223) and men (n = 170) at the raw data level in preparation for factor analyses. Three methods were used to determine the number of factors to extract. First, it was hypothesized that five factors would provide the best fit for the women's data and that three factors would provide the best fit for the men's data. These hypotheses were based on the scale development research reported in Chapter III (Method) which found five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) simple structures using a similar item set with student and community samples of women and men (Woolsey et al., 1988a). Second, principal component analyses were performed on the correlation matrix for the 60 items of the Bonds Between Women Scale and on the correlation matrix for the 40 items of the Bonds Between Men Scale. The eigenvalues obtained were plotted against the factors and the scree test (Cattell, 1966) of eigenvalues suggested four or six factors for women and three factors for 280 men. Because a five-factor structure had been established for women in previous research and because adopting five factors was within the range of four or six factors suggested by the scree test, a five-factor structure was assumed for women. Finally, five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) unweighted least squares factor analyses, employing Harris-Kaiser oblique transformations, were performed on the correlation matrix for the 60 items of the Bonds Between Women Scale and on the correlation matrix for the 40 items of the Bonds Between Men Scale. After dropping 8 items for women and 4 items for men because of factorial complexity of the dropped items, five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) Harris-Kaiser transformed unweighted least squares factor analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for the remaining 52 items for women and 36 items for men. The resulting five-factor and three-factor structures were simple for both women and men and all of the items remained on the factors to which they were hypothesized to belong. Primary-factor intercorrelations were relatively low (see Table C-6). Scree tests (Cattell, 1966) performed on the plotted eigenvalues obtained from principal component analyses of the retailed 52 items for women and 36 items for men supported the acceptance of five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) structures: once again, the scree test suggested four or six factors for women (five factors is within this range) and three factors for men. The factors and oblique primary-factor pattern coefficients for the items on each factor are listed in Table C-7. The results presented in this subsection and in Tables C-6 and C-7 replicated the basic five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) simple structure found in previous research (Woolsey et al., 1988a); three factors common to women and men (Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing) and the two factors unique to women (Jealousy and , Identification) were found in both instances. For the purpose of the current study, individual scale scores for each of the factors were calculated for each respondent by summing the scores obtained on the retained items for each factor. Descriptive statistics for the 52-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the 36-item Bonds Between Men Scale are given in Table C-8. Note that the internal consistency reliability coefficients 281 Table C-6 Oblique Primary-Factor Intercorrelations for the Items of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Sca/ea Factor 1 II III IV V 1. CG Pref — .05 -.45 .36 -.21 II. SG Pref .28 — .19 .16 .26 III. Valuing .27 .17 — -.04 .36 IV. Jealousy * * * — -.06 V. Identification * * * * . . . Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference. The oblique primary-factor intercorrelations reported above resulted from five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) unweighted least squares factor analyses followed by oblique transformations by the Harris-Kaiser method (for women, c = .25; for men, c = 0). Intercorreletions are above the diagonal for women (n = 223) and below the diagonal for men (n = 170). An asterisk in a cell indicates that an intercorrelation is inapplicable (i..e, because Jealousy and Identification are women-only factors, there are no intercorrelations to report for these factors for men). aThe results reported in this table are for the 52-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the 36-item Bonds Between Men Scale. 282 Table C-7 Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Coefficients for Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale Items3-Women Men Factor I. Cross-Gender Preference .70 .57 2/ 2. I would rather work for a man than a woman. .67 .56 6/ 5. Intellectual discussions are more satisfying with men than with women. .77 .64 11/8. I trust men more than women in positions of authority. .83 .62 16/11. When I have to take on a tough job, I would rather have a man than a woman on my side. .68 .78 21/14. I would rather ask a man than a woman for help. .57 .70 26/17. I find it easier to work out disagreements with men than with women. .76 .68 31/20. I trust men more than other women. .54 .71 36/23. As confidants, I prefer men to women. .68 .50 40/26. I find men more interesting than women. .39 .52 49/31. Women's opinions are less important to me than men's. .52 .67 51/33. On the whole, men are more important to me than are other women. .46 .62 59/39. In disagreements between people, I tend to side with men rather than with women. (table continues) 283 Sample Women Men Item Factor II. Same-Gender Preference .60 .68 3/ 3. I find women easier to work with than men. .68 .64 8/ 6. I feel a certain sense of unity when working on a project with women that I do not feel when men are included. .60 .63 13/9. It is easier to be myself with women than with men. .55 .63 18/12. When men are present, a group feels less free and easy. .61 .54 23/15. When I want to try something adventurous or daring, I prefer women to men as companions. .54 .72 28/18. When personal feelings are talked about in a group, I would rather the group be all women. .66 .72 33/21. I prefer women to men as teammates. .57 .55 37/24. When men are present, the talk seems less warm and intimate. .50 .42 42/27. At social gatherings, I almost always seek out other women. .56 .47 47/30. When I want to break free from responsibilities, I would rather go out with women than men. .65 .48 50/32. I can trust women more than men when the situation calls for decisiveness and leadership. .58 .52 52/34. In general, it is more important to be loyal to women than to men. .56 .62 55/36. There is a sense of challenge, strength, and comradeship when women get together that is weakened if men are included. .67 .68 58/38. I can count on women more than men to be there when I need them. .67 .63 60/40. I prefer women to men as co-workers on a job. (table continues) 284 S a m p l e Item Women Men Factor III. Valuing .68 .63 1/1. My relationships with women are a source of stability and consistency in my life. .72 .59 R 5/ 4. My relationships with women do not meet any important emotional needs for me. .82 .73 10/ 7. I would feel lonely without my relationships with women. .69 .72 20/13. I miss my women friends when I cannot see them as often as usual. .39 .34 R25/16. I do not seek out other women to talk to at work or school. .42 .51 R30/19. I do not understand myself better as a result of the time I have spent with women. .91 .80 35/22. My relationships with women are very important to me. .64 .87 R39/25. Relationships with women are not a necessary part of my life. .57 .70 R44/28. Women do not add to the quality of my life. Factor IV. Jealousy (women only) .61 7. Other women are a threat to me. .57 17. Undermining by other women often has caused problems for me at work. .56 22. I often feel jealous of other women. .52 27. Other women often have tried to make me look bad. .51 41. I seldom feel a sense of rivalry with other women. .55 46. Sometimes I feel jealous of women friends who attract all the men. .38 54. I have never been betrayed by another woman. .50 57. I am jealous of women who have accomplished more than I have. (table continues) 285 S a m p l e Item Women Men Factor V. Identification (women only) .75 4. I feel a sense of pride in being a woman when I hear about women's achievements. .72 9. I feel complimented when I hear someone say something good about women. .50 14. If I have the chance, I try to help other women get ahead. .81 19. When I hear about a woman who has overcome opposition in order to do what she believed to be right for her life, I feel proud to be a woman. .38 R24. The success of women in positions of high authority and responsibility has not increased my own confidence. .54 R34. The success or failure of women in public life means nothing to me. .43 43. I think it is great that some women are trying to open up new opportunities and freedoms for women. .47 48. I try to work with other women to improve the position of women in our society. Note. The primary-factor pattern coefficients reported above resulted from five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) unweighted least squares factor analyses followed by oblique transformations by the Harris-Kaiser method (for women, c = .25; for men, c = 0). For women, n = 223; for men, n = 170. aThe results reported in this table are for the 52-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the 36-item Bonds Between Men Scale. All items listed in this table were factorially simple (i.e., had primary-factor pattern coefficients > .30 on one factor only). Only those coefficients > .30 are listed in this table. T^he wording of the items in this table is that of the Bonds Between Women Scale. The item number for each item as it appeared on the women's questionnaire in the current study is listed to the left of each item; the item number for each item as it appeared on the men's questionnaire is listed to the right of the slanted line which follows the women's item number. Please refer to the Bonds Between Men Scale in Appendix A for the exact wording of the men's items. An R prior to an item number indicates reverse scoring for that item. Table C-8 Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Scales of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale Scale Number of respondents Number of items Potential range of scores Number of missing responses plugged with item means Mean Standard deviation Coefficient alpha Women CG Pref 223 12 12 to 72 3 29.43 9.01 .91 SG Pref 223 15 15 to 90 13 44.53 10.94 .90 Valuing 223 9 9 to 54 3 43.39 7.69 .90 Jealousy 223 8 8 to 48 3 20.90 5.49 .76 Identification 223 8 8 to 48 7 35.01 5.90 .83 Men CG Pref 170 12 12 to 72 3 34.35 7.62 .89 SG Pref 170 15 15 to 90 1 44.38 10.21 .89 Valuing 170 9 9 to 54 1 35.40 7.45 .87 Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference. The results reported above are for the 52-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the 36-item Bonds Between Men Scale. 287 reported in Table C-8 are all relatively high (.76 to .91 for women; .87 to .89 for men). The interscale correlation coefficients (reported in Table C-9) are relatively low. Scale scores on each of the five factors (for women) and three factors (for men) calculated from the reduced item sets of 52 and 36 items, respectively, were used as the measures of the independent variables in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Questions 1 and 2 (see Figures 2 and 3). In order to derive conceptually comparable composite measures of same-gender preference and cross-gender preference for women and men to be used as independent variables in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Question 4 (see Figure 5), the interscale correlation matrices reported in Table C-9 were factor analyzed. Principal component analyses produced two eigenvalues greater than unity for both women and men, indicating the presence of two composite factors according to the Kaiser-Guttman criterion. For women, the first eigenvalue (2.03) accounted for 40.6% of the variance; the second eigenvalue (1.36) accounted for 27.2% of the variance. The first eigenvalue for men (1.28) accounted for 42.7% of the variance while the second eigenvalue (1.18) accounted for 39.3% of the variance. Unweighted least squares factor analysis for two factors, followed by a Harris-Kaiser oblique transformation, was performed on the women's 5x5 interscale correlation matrix reported in Table C-9. The results of this analysis are reported in Table C-10. Unweighted least squares factor analysis could not be performed on the 3 x 3 interscale correlation matrix for men (see Table C-9) because this matrix was not positive-definite (that is, not all of the eigenvalues for this matrix were greater than zero). Because principal component analysis (PCA) can be performed on a non-positive-definite correlation matrix, Harris-Kaiser transformed PCA for two factors was performed on the men's interscale correlation matrix reported in Table C-9. The results of this principal component analysis are reported in Table C-11. The two composite factors were named Same-Gender Preference Composite and Cross-Gender Preference Composite for both women and men. Because of the two extra individual scales for women (Jealousy and Identification) and differences in the pattern coefficients obtained on the composite factors by the three common scales (Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender 288 Table C-9 Interscale Correlation for the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale1 Scale CG Pref SG Pref Valuing Jealousy Identification CGPref — .03 -.53 .38 -.28 SGPref .24 — .28 .17 .32 Valuing -.27 .19 — .04 .49 Jealousy * * * - .08 Identification Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference. Interscale correlations for women (n = 223) are above the diagonal; interscale correlations for men (n = 170) are below the diagonal. An asterisk in a cell indicates that an interscale correlation is inapplicable (i.e., because Jealousy and Identification are women-only scales, there are no interscale correlations to report for these scales for men). aThe results reported in this table are for the 52-item Bonds Between Women Scale and the 36-item Bonds Between Men Scale. 289 Table C-10 Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Matrix and Communalities (h ) for the Five Individual Scales of the Bonds Between Women Scale5 Factor Scale I Same-Gender Preference Composite II Cross-Gender Preference Composite h2 CG Pref -.30 .85 .91 SG Pref .55 .32 .34 Valuing .71 - .21 .61 Jealousy .09 .46 .21 Identification .63 -.03 .40 Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference. The primary-factor pattern coefficients reported above resulted from unweighted least squares factor analysis followed by an oblique transformation by the Harris-Kaiser method (c = .5), n = 223. aThe results reported in this table are for the 52-item Bonds Between Women Scale. correlation between the two oblique factors is -.17. 290 Table C-11 Oblique Principal Component Pattern Matrix for the Three Individual Scales of the Bonds Between Men Scalea Component'5 I II Same-Gender Cross-Gender Scale Preference Composite Preference Composite CG Pref .52 .72 SGPref .92 -.10 Valuing .31 - .86 Note. CG Pref = Cross-Gender Preference; SG Pref = Same-Gender Preference. The principal component pattern coefficients reported above resulted from principal component analysis followed by an oblique transformation by the Harris-Kaiser method (c = .5), n = 170. aThe results reported in this table are for the 36-item Bonds Between Men Scale. ^he correlation between the two oblique components is .02. 291 Preference, and Valuing), the two composite factors have somewhat different interpretations for women and men. Individual scales which obtained pattern coefficients of .30 or greater on a composite factor where included in the conceptual interpretation of that composite factor. For women, the Same-Gender Preference Composite was defined by the following individual scales which obtained primary-factor pattern coefficients greater than or equal to .30 on that composite factor: Valuing (.71), Identification (.63), Same-Gender Preference (.55), and Cross-Gender Preference (-.30). The factor was defined, then, by a high degree of positive valuing of relationships with other women, a strong sense of identification with other women as a group, a preference for interactions with other women over interactions with men, and a negative preference for relationships with men (that is, interactions with men were not preferred over interactions with women). The conceptual interpretation of the men's Same-Gender Preference Composite was somewhat different than the women's. The men's composite was defined by pattern coefficients greater than or equal to .30 on all three individual scales: Same-Gender Preference (.92), Cross-Gender Preference (.52), and Valuing (.31). The men's Same-Gender Composite, then, was characterized by an overall positive attitude toward both genders. The largest coefficient on Same-Gender Preference (.92) indicated that the composite factor was defined most strongly by an overall preference for relationships with men over relationships with women. However, the second largest coefficient on Same-Gender Preference (.52) indicated the simultaneous presence of a preference for relationships with women over relationships with men in the circumstances addressed by the items in that scale. Finally, the coefficient of .31 on Valuing indicated as overall valuing of relationships with men. For women, the Cross-Gender Preference Composite was characterized by three scales which obtained primary-factor pattern coefficients greater than or equal to .30 on that composite factor: Cross-Gender Preference (.85), Jealousy (.46), and Same-Gender Preference (.32). This composite factor, then, was defined most strongly by a preference for relationships with men over relationships with women. This cross-gender preference was accompanied by feelings of jealousy toward other women present simultaneously with a preference for relationships with women over 292 relationships with men in the situations touched upon by the items in that scale. The men's Cross-Gender Preference Composite was defined by large coefficients on the Valuing (-.86) and Cross-Gender Preference (.72) scales, indicating a reactive preference for relationships with women over relationships with men. That is, a strong negative valuing of relationships with men was accompanied by a strong preference for relationships with women. Individual factor scores on the Same-Gender Preference Composite factors and the Cross-Gender Preference Composite factors were computed for later use in testing the hypotheses associated with Research Question 4 (see Figure 5). For women, the factor score coefficient matrix obtained by the regression method following the five-factor unweighted least squares factor analysis of the five scales described earlier was post-multiplied by the observed data matrix (for the five scales) to obtain individual factor scores for each factor. The same procedure was applied for men (using the factor score coefficient matrix obtained by the regression method subsequent to the three-component principal component analysis of the three scales-for men) to derive individual component scores for the two composite components. The factor scores were standardized to a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. 4. Factor Analyses Involving Relationship Provisions Data (Close Social Relationships Scale [CSRS]) In the current study, the CSRS was completed up to two times by each respondent. If a respondent had identified both same- and cross-gender persons who provided both mentoring functions and informal relationship provisions, then the respondent completed the CSRS twice: once with respect to the same-gender persons identified and once with respect to the cross-gender persons identified as providers of mentoring behaviours and relationship provisions. If a respondent identified only same-gender persons or only cross-gender persons, then the CSRS was completed only once. If no same- or cross-gender persons were identified, the CSRS was left blank. Hence, four different sets of CSRS data were available for analyses: (a) data provided by women who had completed the CSRS with respect to their same-gender relationships (n = 174, all organizations 293 included), (b) data provided by men who had completed the CSRS with respect to their same-gender relationships (n = 144, all organizations included), (c) data provided by women who had completed the CSRS with respect to their cross-gender relationships (n = 150, all organizations included), and (d) data provided by men who had completed the CSRS with respect to their cross-gender relationships (n = 88, all organizations included). In preparation for conducting factor analyses, a similar set of procedures to those employed for the career- and job-related variables and for the Bonds data were utilized to determine if CSRS data gathered from respondents in the three types of organizations (public sector, private sector, and Crown corporation) could be pooled for factor-analytic purposes. First, scale scores were calculated for each of the six CSRS scales for which data were collected: Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Emotional Support, Respect for Differences, and Lifetime Attachment. Then, for each of the four sets of CSRS data described in the previous paragraph, the homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices and the differences between the means obtained on the six scales by respondents in the three types of organizations were tested for significance. For women in the public sector (n = 144) and the private sector (n = 25) who had completed the six CSRS scales with respect to their same-gender relationships, nonsignificant differences were found between the variance-covariance matrices [F(21.0,6600.33) < 1,p > .05, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means [F(6,162) < 1, p > .05, using Hotelling's T test for two groups]. The data gathered from women in the Crown corporation (n = 5) could not be included in these significance tests because the program OWMAR (One-Way Multivariate Analysis of Variance) used in these analyses required that the number of respondents in the smallest group be equal to or greater than the number of dependent variables (six in this case). However, given the nonsignificant differences between the CSRS data gathered from women in the public and private sectors, it was decided to pool (at the raw data level) the same-gender CSRS data gathered from women in all three types of organizations (n = 174). For men who had completed the six CSRS scales with respect to their same-gender relationships (public sector, n = 109; private sector, n = 23; Crown corporation, n = 12), 294 nonsignificant differences were found between the variance-covariance matrices [F(42.0,3382.01) = 1.18, p > .05, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means, using both the maximum latent root approach and the MANOVA likelihood ratio test [F(12,272) < 1, p > .05]. Because of these nonsignificant differences, the same-gender CSRS data collected from men in the three types of organizations (n = 144) were pooled at the raw data level. Data also were pooled at the raw data level (n = 150) for women who had completed the six CSRS scales with respect to their cross-gender relationships (public sector, n = 115; private sector, n = 24; Crown corporation, n = 11). Nonsignificant group differences were noted between the variance-covariance matrices [F(42.0,2752.00) = 1.33, p > .05, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means, using both the maximum latent root approach and the MANOVA likelihood ratio test [F(12,284) = 1.05, p > .05]. For men in the public (n = 72) and private (n = 12) sectors who had completed the six CSRS scales with respect to their cross-gender relationships, nonsignificant differences were found between the variance-covariance matrices [F(21.0,1372.44) = 1.49, p > .05, using the Bartlett-Box procedure] and between the means [F(6,77) = 1.60, p > .05, using Hotelling's T 2 test for two groups]. Data gathered from men in the Crown corporation (n = 4) could not be included in these significance tests because the number of respondents in this group was less than the number of dependent variables (six) and the program OWMAR would not run under this condition. However, cross-gender CSRS data gathered from men in all three types of organizations (n = 88) were pooled at the raw data level because of the nonsignificant differences found between men in the public and private sectors. In summary, CSRS data gathered from respondents in the three types of organizations were pooled at the raw data level in preparation for factor analyses of the following four sets of data: (a) CSRS completed by women with respect to their same-gender relationships (n = 174), (b) CSRS completed by men with respect to their same-gender relationships (n = 144), (c) CSRS completed by women with respect to their cross-gender relationships (n = 150), and (d) CSRS completed by men with respect to their cross-gender relationships (n = 88). 295 Three methods were used to determine the number of factors to extract from the CSRS data: (a) six factors were hypothesized based on the CSRS scale development research (Woolsey et al., 1988b) reported in Chapter III (Method); (b) scree tests (Cattell, 1966) of eigenvalues were performed; and (c) unweighted least squares factor analyses for four, five, and six factors, followed by oblique transformations by the Harris-Kaiser method, were performed until simple structure was obtained for all four sets of data. Principal component analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for the 50 CSRS items for which data were collected in the current study. The eigenvalues obtained were plotted against the factors: scree tests (Cattell, 1966) of eigenvalues did not indicate six factors for any of the four data sets. For three of the four data sets (women's same-gender, men's same- and cross-gender), four or five factors were indicated. The results for the women's cross-gender data were unclear: the number of factors could not be determined from this scree test. Following the scree tests, a series of four-, five-, and six-factor unweighted least squares factor analyses followed by oblique transformations by the Harris-Kaiser method were performed on the correlation matrices for the CSRS items. The purpose of these analyses was to find a conceptually meaningful, simple factor structure that was consistent across all four data sets (i.e., each item in each data set was to have a primary-factor pattern coefficient equal to or greater than .30 only on the factor to which it was hypothesized to belong). First, six-factor Harris-Kaiser (H-K) transformed unweighted least squares (ULS) factor analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for the full set of 50 CSRS items. The results indicated the presence of only four or five factors. Items established in previous research (Woolsey et al., 1988b) to belong to the Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Intimacy, and Respect for Differences factors consistently had primary-factor pattern coefficients equal to or greater than .30 on the appropriate one of these four factors for all four data sets. A fifth factor (predominantly a combination of items previously established to belong to the Emotional Support and Lifetime Attachment factors) was different for each of the four data sets. A sixth factor was not evident in the results. 296 The results of five-factor H-K transformed ULS factor analyses on the correlation matrices for the 50 items indicated five factors more clearly. However, only three factors -- Similarity (SIM), Defiance of Convention (DC), and Intimacy (INT) -- were consistent across all four data sets. The last two factors consisted of differing combinations of Emotional Support (ES), Lifetime Attachment (LA), and Respect for Differences (RD) items: LA and RD items stood out most clearly as separate factors, with ES items loading with RD and/or LA items differently for each data set. When all 8 ES items were dropped and five-factor H-K transformed ULS factor analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for the remaining 42 items, only four factors (SIM, DC, INT, and RD) were consistent across all four data sets. Four-factor H-K transformed ULS factor analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for differing sets of CSRS items to be retained. The results of the factor analyses for 50 items revealed that the items associated with the SIM, DC, INT, and RD factors consistently achieved primary-factor pattern coefficients equal to or greater than .30 on the appropriate one of these four factors across all four data sets. Some of the items associated with ES and LA achieved high pattern coefficients on one of the four factors. However, the factors on which high coefficients were achieved by ES and LA items differed for the four data sets: many ES and LA items had high coefficients on Intimacy for women's same-gender relationships only, many ES and LA items had high coefficients on Similarity for men's same-gender relationships only, and many ES and LA items had high coefficients on RD for women's same- and cross-gender relationships but not for men's same- and cross-gender relationships. As a result, 7 of 8 ES items and all 5 LA items were dropped from the next round of factor analyses because they did not have pattern coefficients equal to or greater than .30 on the same conceptually meaningful factor for all four data sets. Four more rounds of four-factor H-K transformed ULS factor analyses were performed on the correlation matrices for 38, 32, 31, and 30 items respectively. After each round of factor analyses, items for which the largest pattern coefficients were not equal to or greater than .30 on the same conceptually meaningful factor for all four data sets were dropped from the next round of factor analyses. In the final round of factor analyses for 30 items, all 30 items in all four data sets 297 achieved pattern coefficients equal to or greater than .30 on the factors to which they were hypothesized to belong. The results of this final round of analyses are presented in Tables C-12 and C-13. With only a few minor exceptions, all items were factorially simple. Scree tests (Cattell, 1966) of eigenvalues were performed for the 30 items retained in the final round of factor analyses. The scree tests clearly indicated four factors for women's same- and cross-gender relationships. For men's same-gender relationships, the scree test was less clear but did seem to indicate four factors. Finally, the scree test was very unclear for men's cross-gender relationships: the number of factors could not be determined by this test. In summary, four of the six CSRS factors found in previous research (Woolsey et al., 1988b) were replicated by the factor analyses in the current study. All items from the two factors not supported by the results presented in this section were dropped, as were some additional items which did not achieve pattern coefficients equal to or greater than .30 on one of the four replicated factors to which they were hypothesized to belong. Factor analyses of the final set of 30 items produced an almost completely simple four-factor structure (factorial complexity was noted for only a few items in one or two of the data sets). The four replicated factors were: Similarity (10 items), Intimacy (8 items), Defiance of Convention (7 items), and Respect for Differences (5 items). Scale scores for each of the four replicated factors were used as the measures of four of the dependent variables in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Questions 2 and 3 (see Figures 3 and 4) and as the measures of four of the independent variables in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Question 5 (see Figure 6). Descriptive statistics for the four scales of the 30-item CSRS are presented in Tables C-14 and C-15. Note that the internal consistency reliability coefficients are within an acceptable range (.65 to .90 for women; .65 to .92 for men). The interscale correlations are presented in Table C-16. The correlations are acceptably low. 298 Table C-12 Oblique Primary-Factor Intercorrelations for 30 Items of the Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) Factor I II III IV Same-gender relationships8 I. Similarity .26 .42 .26 II. Intimacy .38 — .26 .43 III. DefCon .56 .38 .15 IV. RespDiff .22 .25 .17 — Cross-gender relationships0 I. Similarity .37 .50 .37 II. Intimacy .25 — .33 .51 III. DefCon .37 .28 .24 IV. RespDiff .19 .19 .12 — Wore. DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. The oblique primary-factor intercorrelations reported above resulted from unweighted least squares factor analyses followed by oblique transformations by the Harris-Kaiser method (for the CSRS completed with respect to same-gender relationships, c = .25 for women and men; for the CSRS completed with respect to cross-gender relationships, c = 0 for women and c = .25 for men). aPrimary-factor intercorrelations for women who completed the CSRS with respect to same-gender relationships (n = 174) are above the diagonal; intercorrelations for men who completed the CSRS with respect to same-gender relationships (n = 144) are below the diagonal. P^rimary-factor intercorrelations for women who completed the CSRS with respect to cross-gender relationships (n = 150) are above the diagonal; intercorrelations for men who completed the CSRS with respect to cross-gender relationships (n = 88) are below the diagonal. 299 Table C-13 Oblique Primary-Factor Pattern Coefficients for 30 Items of the Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS)a Sample Women Men Item SGRel CGRel SG Rel CG Rel Factor I. Similarity .55 .72 .54 .63 1. Being alike in so many ways has made us friends. .51 .52 .65 .56 7. The core, most important part of us is the same. .49 .68 .59 b .56 13. Having a similar life history has drawn us together. .54 .62 .60 .72 19. Our relationship is growing because we seem to be developing along similar lines. .73 .71 .88 .86 25. We are just the same kind of people. .60 .68 .67 .65 31. Our similar interests are a strong bond between us. .59 .63 .47 .54 36. We consistently think and feel the same way. .65 .78 .49 .58 40. A special tie between us is that we both react the same way to things. .58 .53 .64 .63 45. I see a lot of myself in him/her. .69 .74 .71 .64 48. Having the same tastes has helped us to develop our relationship. (table continues) 300 Sample Women Men Item SG Rel CG Rel SG Rel CG Rel Factor II. Intimacy .55 .71 .44 .79 R3 . We do not share with each other our deepest feelings of pain or sorrow. .46 .48 .47 .64 R9. We do not talk in depth about the things we are struggling with. .47 .49 .55 .64 R15. We do not show each other our weaknesses. .57 .71 .49 .40 R27. I do not feel free cry with him/her when I need to. .72 .81 .64 .63 R33. I cannot share the deepest, most personal part of myself with him/her. .61 .71 .67 .53 R38. We do not turn to each other for advice about difficult personal decisions. .44 .47 .55 .54 R43. We do not openly express how much we appreciate each other. .72 .67 .54 .71 R47. We are not open with each other about our deepest doubts and fears. Factor I II. Defiance of Convention .68° .69 .63 .48 2. Sometimes when we are together, we laugh so hard that our sides ache. .71 .76 .65 .76 14. Sometimes when we are together we get a kick out of being really crude. .57 .67 .70 .64 20. We do silly things together just for fun. .79 .88 .86 .84 37. When the mood hits us, we can be really loud and rowdy together. .78 .94 .96 .94 42. Sometimes we get really "wild and crazy" when we are together. .63 .74 .68 .56 46. Sometimes the two of us like to stir up a little trouble just or the fun of it. .55 .59 .56 d .52 6 49. Sometimes we feel so confident when we are together that we do not care if other people disapprove or think we are silly. (table continues) 301 Sample Women Men Item SGRel CGRel SG Rel CG Rel Factor IV. Respect for Differences .71 .64 .59 .63 5. We respect each other's decisions even if we do not agree with them. .71 .65 .58 .49 11. Differences between us do not interfere with our respect for each other. .46 .55 .41 .59 R17. We do not find it easy to overlook differences between us. .38 .50 .47 .45 R23. We do not allow each other the freedom to grow and change. .30 .34 .41 .30* R35. We do not appreciate the fact that each of us excels at different things. Note. SG Rel = CSRS completed with respect to same-gender relationships (for women, n = 174; for men, n = 144). CG Rel = CSRS completed with respect to cross-gender relationships (for women, n = 150; for men, n = 88). An R prior to an item number indicates reverse scoring for that item. The primary-factor pattern coefficients reported above resulted from unweighted least squares factor analyses followed by oblique transformations by the Harris-Kaiser method (for SG Rel, c = .25 for women and men; for CG Rel, c = 0 for women and c = .25 for men). altems listed in this table were factorially simple (i.e., had primary-factor pattern coefficients > .30 on one factor only) unless noted otherwise by a specific note. Only those coefficients > .30 are listed in this table. bThis item also had a coefficient of -.30 on Respect for Differences for the men's sample (SG Rel). cThis item also had a coefficient of .42 on Respect for Differences for the women's sample (SG Rel). T^his item also had a coefficient of .35 on Similarity for the men's sample (SG Rel). T^his item also had a coefficient of .34 on Similarity for the men's sample (CG Rel). fThis item actually had a larger coefficient (.33) on Intimacy for the men's sample (CG Rel). The item was retained on the Respect for Differences (RespDiff) factor, though, because it had a coefficient of .30 on RespDiff for the men's CG Rel and was factorially simple on RespDiff for the other three administrations (women's and men's SG Rel, women's CG Rel). Table C-14 Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Scales of the 30-ltem Close Social Relationships Scale (Same-Gender Relationships) Number of Number of Potential range Number of missing responses Standard Coefficient Scale respondents items of scores plugged with item means Mean deviation alpha Women Similarity 176 10 10 to 60 10 35.46 7.95 .87 Intimacy 176 8 8 to 48 5 31.52 7.27 .83 Defiance of Convention 176 7 7 to 42 2 23.75 7.48 .88 Respect for Differences 175 5 5 to 30 2 24.53 3.07 .69 Men Similarity 144 10 10 to 60 4 33.39 8.83 .90 Intimacy 144 8 8 to 48 0 25.72 7.18 .80 Defiance of Convention 144 7 7 to 42 0 21.22 8.37 .92 Respect for Differences 144 5 5 to 30 2 23.82 2.79 .66 Table C-15 Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Scales of the 30-ltem Close Social Relationships Scale (Cross-Gender Relationships) Number of Number of Potential range Number of missing responses Standard Coefficient Scale respondents items of scores plugged with item means Mean deviation alpha Women Similarity 153 10 10 to 60 11 32.32 8.59 .89 Intimacy 153 8 8 to 48 1 27.70 8.06 .85 Defiance of Convention 153 7 7 to 42 5 21.24 8.04 .90 Respect for Differences 153 5 5 to 30 1 24.13 3.08 .65 Men Similarity 88 10 10 to 60 3 31.57 8.40 .89 Intimacy 88 8 8 to 48 1 26.76 7.49 .84 Defiance of Convention 88 7 7 to 42 1 20.85 7.20 .88 Respect for Differences 88 5 5 to 30 2 23.34 3.07 .65 304 Table C-16 Interscale Correlations for the 30-ltem Close Social Relationships Scale (CSRS) Scale Similarity Intimacy DefCon RespDiff Similarity Intimacy DefCon RespDiff Same-gender relationships3 .34 .49 .48 - .35 .67 .46 .28 .33 .27 .26 .44 .16 Similarity Intimacy DefCon RespDiff Cross-gender relationships0 .33 .47 .36 — .31 .49 .38 .20 .27 .21 .26 .41 .19 Note. DefCon = Defiance of Convention; RespDiff = Respect for Differences. alnterscale correlations for women who completed the CSRS with respect to same-gender relationships (n = 174) are above the diagonal; interscale correlations for men who completed the CSRS with respect to same-gender relationships (n = 144) are below the diagonal. Dlnterscale correlations for women who completed the CSRS with respect to cross-gender relationships (n = 150) are above the diagonal; interscale correlations for men who completed the CSRS with respect to cross-gender relationships (n = 88) are below the diagonal. 305 5. Scoring and Descriptive Statistics for the Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Measure The administration conditions, scoring, and descriptive statistics for the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure (Schroeder, 1988/1989) are presented in this subsection. As well, a brief explanation of the use of the scores as independent and dependent variables in different research questions is provided. The supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure was completed up to two times by each respondent in the current study. If a respondent had identified both same- and cross-gender persons as providers of supportive (mentoring) functions, then the respondent completed the supportive behaviours measure twice: once with respect to the levels of supportive behaviours provided by the same-gender persons identified and once with respect to the levels provided by the cross-gender persons identified. If only same-gender or only cross-gender persons were identified, then the supportive behaviours measure was completed only once. If no one was identified as providing supportive behaviours, then the measure was not completed at all (this was an infrequent occurrence). Up to two Total Supportive Behaviour Scores (TSBS) were computed for each respondent: each respondent potentially could have one TSBS for same-gender relationships and one TSBS for cross-gender relationships. The TSBS is the sum of the scores received on each of the 40 items of the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure. Descriptive statistics for the measure are provided in Table C-17. Note that the internal consistency reliability coefficients (alpha) are very high (.96 and .97 for women's same- and cross-gender relationships, respectively; .97 for both same- and cross-gender relationships for men). The TSBS was employed as the measure of one of the dependent variables (supportive behaviours) in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Questions 2 and 3 (see Figures 3 and 4). The TSBS also was utilized as the measure of one of the independent variables (supportive behaviours) in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Question 5 (see Figure 6). Table C-17 Descriptive Statistics for the Supportive (Mentoring) Behaviours Measure Administration Number of Number of Potential range Number of missing responses Standard Coefficient condition respondents items of scores plugged with item means Mean deviation alpha Women Same-gender 219 40 0 to 160 77 85.70 33.50 .96 relationships Cross-gender 227 40 0 to 160 78 84.51 34.27 .97 relationships Men Same-gender 186 40 0 to 160 37 84.60 33.38 .97 relationships Cross-gender 131 40 0 to 160 33 65.78 37.33 .97 relationships Note. The Total Supportive Behaviour Score (TSBS) was the unit of measurement selected for the current study and is the score reported in this table. The TSBS is the sum of the scores obtained on all 40 items of the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure (Schroeder, 1988/1989). a Up to two different administration conditions for completing the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure were possible. The measure could be completed once with respect to the respondent's same-gender supportive (mentoring) relationships and once with respect to the respondent's cross-gender supportive (mentoring) relationships. 3 0 7 Finally, for each respondent, information about the presence or absence of same- and cross-gender providers of supportive (mentoring) behaviours was combined with the same- and cross-gender Total Supportive Behaviour Scores to derive two new scores: Level of Mentoring Received From Same-Gender Networks and Level of Mentoring Received From Cross-Gender Networks. These new scores (dichotomized at the median into high and low scores) were used as measures of independent variables in tests of the hypotheses associated with Research Question 4 (see Figure 5). The rationale for this method of scoring was provided along with the rationale for the hypotheses associated with Research Question 4 (see the Research Questions and Hypotheses section of Chapter III). Respondents who did not list any same-gender providers of mentoring functions received a score of zero for Level of Mentoring Received From Same-Gender Networks (LMSG). For those respondents who listed one or more same-gender providers of mentoring functions, and who completed the supportive (mentoring) behaviours measure with respect to these same-gender providers, LMSG scores were identical to the TSBS for same-gender networks. The same procedures were employed in computing the Level of Mentoring Received From Cross-Gender Networks (LMCG). B. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF THE FACTOR ANALYSES 1. Career- and Job-Related Outcomes The basic three-factor structure of career- and job-related outcomes found by Schroeder (1988/1989) in his principal component analysis of a similar set of 11 employee outcome variables was replicated by the factor analyses conducted with the data gathered for the current study. Eight of the 10 individual outcome measures utilized in the present study -- Job Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development, Conceptual Skill Development, Organizational Commitment, Satisfaction With Progression, Acceptance by Co-workers, Average Number of Promotions per Year, and Average Annual Salary Increase - were identical to the measures used by Schroeder and two measures - Job Satisfaction and Loneliness at Work -- were different. (Schroeder used a different 3 0 8 measure of job satisfaction, did not measure loneliness, and measured two variables not addressed in the current study -- role ambiguity and role conflict.) The variable content of each of the three factors established for women and men in the current study was very similar to that found by Schroeder. The Skill Development factor (also called Skill Development by Schroeder) was defined by pattern coefficients of greatest magnitude (and greater than .30) for Job Skill Development, Interpersonal Skill Development, and Conceptual Skill Development for both women and men in the current study and for the pooled respondent group of women and men in Schroeder's study. The individual measures with the highest loadings on the Affective Outcomes factor were Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Satisfaction With Progression, and Acceptance by Co-workers (for both women and men in the current study), and Loneliness at Work (for men in the current study). Schroeder (1988/1989) called this factor Job-Related Outcomes; his factor was defined by Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Acceptance by Co-Workers, Role Ambiguity, and Role Conflict (note that the last two variables were not measured in the current study but are conceptually related to Affective Outcomes, i.e., they could be considered to be affective responses to the job). Finally, the Advancement Outcomes factor was defined by the Average Number of Promotions per Year and Average Annual Salary Increase (for both women and men in the current study and for Schroeder's pooled sample of women and men), and by Satisfaction With Progression (for Schroeder's sample). Of note is the fact that, for women in the current study, four variables that could be classified as affective responses to the job -- Organizational Commitment, Satisfaction With Progression, Acceptance by Co-workers, and Loneliness at Work -- also had primary-factor pattern coefficients greater than .30 on the Skill Development Outcomes factor. For women, the primary-factor pattern coefficient for Loneliness at Work was -.44 on the Skill Development Outcomes factor, while the pattern coefficients for Loneliness were not appreciable on either of the other two factors. These results indicate that, for the women respondents in the current study, Skill Development is contextual; it is embedded within the network of relationships which surround the individual woman. These results are consistent with Miller's (1976) statement that a central aspect of women's 309 psychology is that women "stay with, build on, and develop in a context of attachment and affiliation with others" (p. 83) and with Surrey's (1985) formulation of the self-in-relation theory of women's development: "Our conception of the self-in-relation involves the recognition that, for women, the primary experience of self is relational, that is, the self is organized and developed in the context of important relationships" (p. 2). For the men in the current study and for the predominantly male sample in Schroeder's (1988/1989) study (of the total of 397 respondents in Schroeder's study, 72.0% were male and 28.0% were female), the three skill development outcomes (Job, Interpersonal, and Conceptual Skill Development) loaded on a totally separate factor from the variables classified as Affective and Advancement Outcomes in the present study. This pattern of results indicates that for these two samples of men, skill development was viewed as separate from their interpersonal relationships at work and their affective responses to their job and organization. These results are consistent with theories of development based on male experience. Surrey (1985) summarized these theories as a contrast to self-in-relation theory: It is helpful to use as a contrast some current assumptions about male (often generalized to human) development. Currently, developmental theory stresses the importance of separation from the mother at early stages of childhood development (Mahler, 1975), from family at adolescence (Erikson, 1963), and from teachers and mentors in adulthood (Levinson, 1978) in order for the individual to form a distinct, separate identity. High value is placed on autonomy, self-reliance, independence, self-actualization, "listening to and following" one's own unique dream, destiny and fulfillment, (p. 2) The concept of the self-in-relation, on the other hand, places emphasis on relationship rather than separation as the foundation for the experience of self and development: Further, relationship is seen as the basic goal of development: i.e. the deepening capacity for relationship and relational competence. The self-in-relation model assumes that other aspects of the self (e.g. creativity, autonomy, assertion) develop within this primary context. That is, other aspects of self-development emerge in the context of relationship, and there is no inherent need to disconnect or to sacrifice relationship for self-development. (Surrey, 1985, p. 2) 310 2. Homosocial Attitudes The five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) simple structure obtained by Woolsey et al. (1988a) in their factor-analytic work with homosocial attitudes data collected from student and community samples was replicated by the factor analyses conducted with the data collected for the current study. As described in Chapter III of this document, Woolsey et al. (1988a) administered a 192-item version of the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale to student and community samples of women and men. The results of factor analyses conducted on the items indicated the presence of three factors common to women and men (Cross-Gender Preference, Same-Gender Preference, and Valuing) and an additional two factors which held only for women (Identification and Jealousy). The strongest items (50 for women, 40 for men) from the original item pool and 10 new items written to increase the length of the women's Identification and Jealousy scales to 10 items each formed the item pool administered to the respondents in the current study. Other than dropping 8 items (for women) and 4 items (for men) because of factorial complexity, the five-factor (for women) and three-factor (for men) simple structure obtained by Woolsey et al. (1988a) was reproduced by the factor analyses conducted with the Bonds data collected from the women and men respondents in the current study. This reproduction of the five-factor and three-factor simple structures of conceptually meaningful factors provides further evidence of the construct validity of the homosocial attitudes measured by the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale. The five factors (for women) and three factors (for men) now have been shown to be stable across three different environmental contexts (student, community, and organizational settings). Further evidence of convergent validity (other than that discussed in Chapter III) was obtained by the results of the analyses conducted to test the hypotheses associated with Research Questions 1 and 2 (see Chapter IV [Results]). The hypotheses which correspond to these questions were predictions that scores on the Bonds subscales would be predictive of the sizes of same- and cross-gender networks (Hypotheses 1 and 2) and of the levels of supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks (Hypotheses 3 and 4). 311 The results of these hypothesis-testing analyses provided more evidence of convergent validity of the Bonds subscales for women than for men. For women, each of the five homosocial attitudes was significantly related (in the hypothesized direction) to at least one of the dependent variables (size of same- or cross-gender network, levels of supportive [mentoring] behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- or cross-gender networks). (See the Research Questions 1 and 2 sections of Chapter IV [Results] and of Chapter V [Discussion] for a more detailed discussion of the women's results.) For men, no significant relationships were found between any of the three homosocial attitudes applicable to men and size of same- or cross-gender networks. However, men's Cross-Gender Preference scores were predictive of the level of Respect for Differences received from same-gender networks (as hypothesized, male respondents with low CGP scores received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from same-gender networks than male respondents with high CGP scores). In addition, men's Same-Gender Preference scores were predictive of the level of Respect for Differences received from cross-gender networks (as hypothesized, men with low SGP scores received significantly higher levels of Respect for Differences from cross-gender networks than men with high SGP scores). Men's Same-Gender Preference and Cross-Gender Preference scores were not significantly related to the level of supportive (mentoring) behaviours received or to any of the other three relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks, and none of the relationships between men's Valuing scores and supportive (mentoring) behaviours and relationship provisions received from same- and cross-gender networks was significant in the hypothesized direction. The internal consistency reliability of the subscales of the Bonds Scale remained high in the current study: coefficient alpha ranged from .76 to .91 for the five women's scales and from .87 to .89 for the three men's scales (see Table C-8). In summary, the results of the Woolsey et al. (1988a) study and of the current study suggest that the Bonds Between Women/Bonds Between Men Scale is a suitably reliable and valid measure of homosocial attitudes for the largely exploratory purposes of the present study. 312 3. Relationship Provisions In the current study, relationship provisions were measured by the Close Social Relationships Scale (Woolsey et al., 1988b). The factor-analytic work of Woolsey et al. (1988b) had suggested an eight-factor simple structure of relationship provisions as measured by the CSRS (reduced to 54 items by repeated factor analyses and conceptual analyses). Forty-seven of the strongest items from the six strongest scales in the Woolsey et al. study - Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, Respect for Differences, Emotional Support, and Lifetime Attachment --were retained for use in the current study. The addition of three new items to the Intimacy scale increased the total number of CSRS items used in the present study to 50. Factor analyses of the items were performed separately in the current study for: a) women's same-gender relationships, b) women's cross-gender relationships, c) men's same-gender relationships, and d) men's cross-gender relationships. These analyses were performed separately in order to find a factor structure that was valid for all of these relationship types. As discussed in Chapter III (Method), scale development of the CSRS and of other measures similar to the CSRS had not proceeded to the point of establishing the same simple factor structure of relationship provisions for both same- and cross-gender relationship of both women and men. A strength of the current study was the extraction of four factors that were reliable (in terms of internal consistency) and valid across same- and cross-gender relationships for both genders in the work setting. Only the four factors that were replicated by the factor analyses conducted with the data for all four relationship types in the current study were retained for the hypothesis-testing analyses. Hence, only the relationship provisions of Intimacy, Similarity, Defiance of Convention, and Respect for Differences were included in the hypothesis-testing analyses; the provisions of Emotional Support and Lifetime Attachment were dropped from all further analyses. A number of explanations might account for the failure of the results of the factor analyses to reproduce all six factors. First, dropping the seven Practical Support and Casual Socializing items that were included in the last round of factor analyses done with the original student women and men data sets (Woolsey et al., 1988b) and adding three new Intimacy items may have been enough 313 to alter the factor structure. Second, the CSRS was administered under very different conditions in the current study as compared with the administration conditions in the Woolsey et al. study. The respondents in the present study were employed in managerial, supervisory, professional, or technical positions. They completed the CSRS with respect to their work relationships only. The respondents in the Woolsey et al. study were students who completed the CSRS with respect to their closest same-gender relationships with friends, family members, neighbours, and workmates. It may be that the Emotional Support and Lifetime Attachment factors are characteristics of close social relationships that occur predominantly outside the work setting. Perhaps the task-oriented focus of the organizational setting limits the development or expression of the relationship provisions of Emotional Support and Lifetime Attachment. Further scale development research, in which the same 50 CSRS items as those utilized in the current study are administered to both student and organizational samples of women and men, would be required to investigate this possibility. In the meantime, the four factors generated in the current study can be considered suitably reliable and valid measures of four relationship provisions received from women's and men's same-and cross-gender relationships in the workplace. Note that the internal consistency reliability remained high for each of the provisions measured by the 30-item, four-scale version of the CSRS used in the hypothesis-testing analyses for the current study. Coefficient alpha ranged from .65 (for men's and women's cross-gender relationships) for a 5-item scale (Respect for Differences) to .92 (for men's same-gender relationships) for a 7-item scale (Defiance of Convention) (see Tables C-14 and C-15). 259 Table B-1 Number of Distributed. Returned, Excluded, and Retained Questionnaires Distributed Returned Excluded Retained Parts Part 1 Part 2 Missing Organization Parts Part 1 Part 2 Industrial sector 1 & 2 only only Total % data Tenure noi specified 1 & 2 only only Total % Women Public Post-secondary education (1) 545 148 26 2 176 32.3 5 13 0 135 23. 0 158 29.0 Post-secondary education (2) 122 48 11 0 59 48.4 2 4 0 43 10 0 53 43.4 Private Computer systems design & consultation 8 7 0 0 7 87.5 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 87.5 Equipment sales & service 6 3 0 0 3 50.0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 50.0 Professional accounting 10 7 1 0 8 80.0 0 0 - 0 7 1 0 8 80.0 Telecommunications broadcasting 21 16 0 0 16 76.2 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 76.2 Crown corporation Utilities 13 11 1 0 12 92.3 0 0 0 11 1 0 12 92.3 Not specified 0 1 0 1 2 NA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 NA Totals 725 241 39 3 283 39.0 7 17 2 222 35 0 257 35.5 Men Public Post-secondary education (1) 567 113 17 1 131 23.1 3 9 0 103 16 0 119 21.0 Post-secondary education (2) 110 37 5 0 42 38.2 2 2 0 35 3 0 38 34.6 Private Computer sytems design & consultation 9 7 0 0 7 77.8 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 66.7 Equipment sales & service 4 3 1 0 4 100.0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 100.0 Professional accounting 10 5 1 0 6 60.0 0 0 0 5 1 0 6 60.0 Telecommunications broadcasting 17 11 1 0 12 70.6 0 1 0 10 1 0 11 64.7 Crown corporation Utilities 14 12 1 0 13 92.9 0 0 0 12 1 0 13 92.9 Not specified 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA Totals 731 188 26 2 216 29.6 5 13 1 175 22 0 197 27.0