Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Relationships as Career Facilitators

417 views

Published on

A comparison between male and female managers in five European Countries. Presentation held at EAWOP congress, May 2011, Maastricht

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Relationships as Career Facilitators

  1. 1. Relationships as Career FacilitatorsComparing Male and Female Managersin Five European CountriesRegina Eckert, Center for Creative LeadershipKaren S. Lyness, Baruch College, CUNY, USAMarian N. Ruderman, Center for Creative LeadershipWilliam A. Gentry, Center for Creative LeadershipSarah A. Stawiski, Center for Creative LeadershipLaura Sywulak, Baruch College, CUNY, USAKiyoko Uematsu, University of Oulu 2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.
  2. 2. Relationships and Career “New” theories of Career (Boundaryless, Protean, Relational) see relationships as central: • Social capital is essential in a boundaryless career environment (Raider & Burt, 1996) • Relationships help people gain clarity about themselves, their goals, strengths and weaknesses, but also about strategies for self-development (Hall & Associates, 1996; Walsh, Bartunek & Lacey, 1998) • Relationships serve as reference points, inspiration and support for individual career development (Parker, Hall & Kram, 2008)  Developmental relationships in particular are critical to consider (Higgins & Thomas, 1996). 22011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 2
  3. 3. Developmental Relationships & Career development Most prior research on developmental relationships looked at mentoring and coaching , or defined them as a tool for leadership development (McCauley & Douglas, 2003). Focus mainly on developmental relationships in the workplace Focus mainly on dyadic relationships Recent developments: - More holistic approach acknowledging the importance of extra-work developmental relationships (Arthur, Khapova & Wilderom, 2005) - Move towards understanding developmental relationships as “constellations” (Higgins & Thomas, 2001), “networks” (Higgins & Kram, 2001, Bozionelos, 2008) or “neighborhoods” (Lawrence & Zyphur, 2009)2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 3
  4. 4. Developmental Relationships in Context Context matters (Johns, 2006): Country: - Cultural values and practices determine what kind of relationships can be formed (Yip & Wilson, 2010) - Country-level aspects (economic development, labor force development, legislation )influence career paths and perceived career success (Briscoe, Hall & Mayrhofer, in press)  Do developmental relationships differ across countries? Gender: - Developmental relationships of women and men differ in their impact on career (research on gender & mentoring; Gibson & Lawrence, 2010)  Are there gender differences in relationships ? Gender & Country: - Cultural values and country-level aspects characteristics influence gender differences in career development (Davidson & Burke, 2004)  Do developmental relationships of women and men differ across countries? © 2007 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 4 P. 4
  5. 5. Method • Data collected as part of a larger study on career development • Semi-structured interviews were conducted focusing on managers’ definition of career success, career facilitators and obstacles, and developmental relationships • Participants: 53 male and 45 female middle & senior managers in 5 countries, almost all with international experience. • Countries: Netherlands (n = 16), Norway (n = 21), Russia (n = 21), Turkey (n = 20) and Spain (n = 20) (sampled for differences in cultural values & labor force development, yet relatively high economic development) • Interviews yielded 578 accounts of developmental relationships2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 5
  6. 6. Relationship Source Vertical Family Inside the Outside the Organization Organization Friends, acquaintances, Horizontal former colleagues2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 6
  7. 7. Relationship Valence and Function Harmful Helpful Career Career and Task Stalling Psychosocial Support Life Challenge General Mention Role Model2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 7
  8. 8. Data Analysis: Comparison of Function and Source Gender in Country Gender each Country2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 8
  9. 9. Country comparison by function Task Psycho- Role Life General Total Informa- social Model Challenge Mention tion Support Nether- lands 0.46 0.28 0.11 0.01 0.13 71 Norway 0.33 0.40 0.06 0.02 0.20 101 Russia 0.52 0.31 0.05 0.04 0.07 112 Turkey 0.32 0.27 0.08 0.02 0.31 108 Spain 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.26 94 Total 194 159 29 10 94 486 χ2 (16, 486) = 45.89; p< .001; φ = .31 (medium)2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 9
  10. 10. Gender comparison by function Task Psycho- Role Life General Total Informa- social Model Challenge Mention tion Support Male 0.42 0.27 0.06 0.01 0.24 250 Female 0.38 0.39 0.06 0.03 0.14 236 Total 194 159 29 10 94 486 χ2 (4, 486) = 13.65; p< .01; φ = .17 (small); No gender differences in source of relationship2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 10
  11. 11. In-country gender comparison by function Norway: χ2 (486,4) = 13.65; p< .01; φ = .17 (small); Task Psycho- Role Life General Total Informa- social Model Challenge Mention tion Support Male 0.37 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.24 67 Female 0.24 0.59 0.00 0.06 0.12 34 Total 33 40 6 2 20 1012011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 11
  12. 12. In-country gender comparison by function Spain: χ2 (94,2) = 6.86; p< .05; φ = .27 (medium); Task Psycho- Role Life General Total Informa- social Model Challenge Mention tion Support Male 0.46 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.30 46 Female 0.29 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.21 48 Total 35 35 0 0 24 942011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 12
  13. 13. Country comparison by source Org Top- Org Family Friends/ Total down horizontal Others Nether- 0.37 0.28 0.24 0.11 71 lands Norway 0.18 0.43 0.27 0.13 101 Russia 0.24 0.17 0.23 0.32 112 Turkey 0.34 0.20 0.28 0.18 108 Spain 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.23 94 Total 129 130 129 98 486 χ2 (486,12) = 38.61; p< .001; φ = .28 (medium)2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 13
  14. 14. Key Findings: Country By Function • Task information is most mentioned in Russia • Psychosocial support is mentioned the most in Norway • Role model is most mentioned in Netherlands, but never in Spain • Life challenge mentioned most in Russia, but never in Spain By Source • Netherlands and Turkey have the most mentions of top-down relationship in the organization • Norway has most mentions of horizontal relationship in organization • Friends and others outside the organization is seen the most in Russia, least in Netherlands2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 14
  15. 15. Key Findings: Gender By Function • Psychosocial support is mentioned more by women than men Gender within country: • In Norway and Spain, psychosocial support more frequent for women; task information more frequent for men By Source • Relationship sources show no gender variation2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 15
  16. 16. Discussion & Implications • Developmental relationships are not confined to the workplace (47% of stories include outside relationships) • Cultural context influences what relationship functions and sources are dominant • Gender differences in task- and support focused relationships mirror gender differences in mentoring research • Gender differences only in Norway and Spain • Organizations should be aware of the value of outside relationships, and also of their function, especially psychosocial support from family. Work- family friendly policies can help employees realize the benefits from these relationships.2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 16
  17. 17. Thank you!2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 17
  18. 18. Gender comparison by source Org Top- Org Family Friends/ Total down horizontal Others Male 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.18 250 Female 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.23 236 Total 129 130 129 98 486 Non-significant; also no gender within country comparisons significant2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 18
  19. 19. Utilization of developmental relationships Org Top- Org Family Friends/ Total down horizontal Others Task Information 0.49 0.45 0.21 0.46 194 Psychosocial support 0.22 0.18 0.64 0.27 159 General Mention 0.19 0.32 0.05 0.22 94 Role Model 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.05 29 Life Challenge 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 10 Total 129 130 129 98 4862011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 19
  20. 20. 202011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 20
  21. 21. 2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 21

×