To read this content please select one of the options below:

Seniority and gender differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours. Part 1: Introduction and seniority differences

Tony Manning (Management Training and Development Consultant at AC Manning, Selkirk, UK)
Bob Robertson (Independent Consultant based in Melrose, UK)

Industrial and Commercial Training

ISSN: 0019-7858

Article publication date: 20 April 2010

1729

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this two‐part paper is to present and discuss research into gender and seniority differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper builds on a previous article on influencing behaviour and 360‐degree assessments, which found a statistically significant positive relationship between these two sets of variables. However, the strength of this relationship was found to vary, depending on the seniority and gender of individuals. This article extends the previous one in two ways. First, it examines four hypotheses to explain the earlier findings. Second, it introduces data on two other types of behaviour – leadership and team behaviour – in relation to 360‐degree performance assessments. The first two hypotheses relate to seniority differences. The first is that influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments among middle managers because they have less power than senior managers and, in consequence, their style of influence is more important. The second hypothesis is that the behaviour of those at senior levels is symbolic and/or constrained and thus of little substantive importance. Gender differences are, therefore, explored more fully by considering two further hypotheses. The third is that male and female managers tend to be judged by different gender stereotypes. The fourth hypothesis is that male and female managers tend to do different jobs.

Findings

Support was found support for the first hypothesis. 360‐degree assessments are affected by seniority. Influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments of middle managers who tend to have less legitimate power. By contrast, influencing behaviour is less closely linked to 360‐degree assessments in senior managers who have more legitimate power, more influence over change and others and a more significant leadership role. Little support was found for the second hypothesis. 360‐degree assessments were strongly related to leadership and team behaviours in senior managers, as well as middle managers. These findings indicate that the behaviour of those at senior levels is of consequence and, can therefore, be expected to influence 360‐degree assessments. Clear evidence was found to support the third hypothesis that male and female managers were judged by different gender stereotypes. Male managers were judged more positively when they displayed a range of “leadership” behaviours. In contrast, female managers were judged more positively when they displayed “management” and “team” behaviours. Support was also found for the fourth hypothesis that male and female managers tended to do different jobs. Male managers were over‐represented at senior levels and were likely to have more influence over change at both middle and senior management levels.

Originality/value

The originality and value of this paper lies in its examination of the relationship between three different types of behaviour (i.e. influencing, leadership and team working) and 360‐degree assessments of performance, including seniority and gender differences.

Keywords

Citation

Manning, T. and Robertson, B. (2010), "Seniority and gender differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours. Part 1: Introduction and seniority differences", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851011038123

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles