Linking Gender Role Orientation to Subjective Career Success

Abstract

This study investigates the relationships among gender role orientation (i.e., masculinity and femininity), psychological capital (PsyCap), and subjective career success. Based on gender role theory, we predict that masculinity has a stronger effect on an individual’s job and career satisfaction than femininity does. We also expect that PsyCap mediates the relationships between gender role orientation and the outcome variables. A data set collected from 362 Chinese employees was used to test the hypotheses. The results of regression analyses show that the effect of masculinity on job and career satisfaction is stronger than that of femininity. Additionally, both masculinity and femininity are positively related to an individual’s level of PsyCap. The various components of PsyCap, including self-efficacy, hope, and optimism, are found to play different roles in mediating the relationships between gender role orientation and job and career satisfaction.

Keywords

gender role orientation psychological capital career satisfaction job satisfaction Chinese employees

Researchers have shown increasing interest in the question of whether men and women are different in subjective career success, which refers to an individual’s feelings of personal accomplishment (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995). In previous studies, subjective career success has often been operationalized as job satisfaction and career satisfaction (Heslin, 2005; Judge et al., 1995; Ng, Ely, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). Mixed results, however, have been reported regarding the relationship between sex and job satisfaction (Crosby, 1982; Phelan, 1994; Witt & Nye, 1992) and between sex and career satisfaction (Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002; Smith, Smits, & Hoy, 1998). We argue that a missing construct in these studies is gender role orientation.

In current literature, gender role orientation (i.e., masculinity and femininity) has been found to be a stronger predictor than biological sex (i.e., male and female) in accounting for some employees’ job attitudes and behaviors (Eddleston & Powell, 2008; Kirchmeyer, 1998; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). Strong evidence has been provided for the association between an individual’s gender role orientation and career attitudes (Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell, 2006; Marshall & Wijting, 1980; Powell & Posner, 1989). We expect both masculinity and femininity would have an impact on an individual’s evaluation of career success. Besides, it is important to identify the mechanisms through which gender role orientation affects one’s career motivation and outcomes. We argue that psychological capital (PsyCap), defined as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development” (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007, p. 3), plays a mediating role in the above relationships.

The primary objective of our study is to examine the relationships among gender role orientation, PsyCap, and subjective career success (see the conceptual model in Figure 1). We first evaluate the relative impacts of masculinity and femininity on an individual’s job and career satisfaction. Informed by gender role theory, we expect the effect of masculinity would be stronger than that of femininity. We further expect that the two gender role orientations are related to an individual’s level of PsyCap, which in turn affects both job and career satisfaction. Several hypotheses are developed and tested with a data set collected from 362 Chinese employees.

China provides an interesting setting to conduct our study and to evaluate existing theories on gender differences at work. For centuries, China has been a patriarchal society with a clear demarcation of gender roles (Granrose, 2007). Despite communist ideology and social policies that promoted gender equality during Mao’s rule (1949–1976), the traditional patriarchal values and gender-based division of labor has resurfaced after the economic reforms (Summerfield, 1994). Currier (2007) observed that the new policies promoted by the Chinese government implicitly and explicitly encourage women to return home, to take on traditional gender roles, and to leave the public sphere as the domain of men. Strong gender norms and stereotypes have been widely held in contemporary Chinese society. As revealed in some recent studies, Chinese men and women hold different gender role attitudes, family and career orientations, and work values (Granrose, 2007; Pimentel, 2006; Zhang, 2006).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Literature Review

Gender role theory posits that people tend to, and are expected to, engage in activities that are consistent with their culturally defined gender roles (Eagly, 1987). Apart from external social pressures that drive people to perform behaviors congruent with gender roles, individuals also internalize cultural expectations regarding their gender and are intrinsically motivated to act in a way consistent with their gender roles (Burn, 1995). Accordingly, female behaviors are usually expressive, characterized by a concern for others, and have an interpersonal orientation. In contrast, male behaviors are typically instrumental, reflected by the traits of independence, proactivity, and self-confidence (Kidder, 2002).

Beginning in an early stage of human development, gender role socialization encourages one’s adherence to prevailing gender stereotypes. Through various agents of socialization, individuals learn the behaviors that a society defines as appropriate for their gender (Eagly, 1987). As a result, men and women develop different gender belief systems (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010), and hold different personality traits, interests, and values (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Eddleston et al., 2006). Men are typically socialized to be assertive, aggressive, and task-oriented, as compared with women who are typically socialized to be tender, emotional, and communal. Moreover, the two genders tend to place different priorities on work and family roles. In the workplace, male and female employees often specialize in different work roles and possess different skills and capabilities that are in line with gender role expectations.

The construct of PsyCap is drawn from theory and research on positive organizational behavior (POB). Some researchers view it as “state-like” psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for improving individual performance (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Four different components of PsyCap have been identified, which are conceptually and psychometrically distinct (Luthans et al., 2008).

The first component is self-efficacy, which is drawn from Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in her or her abilities to successfully complete a task within a specific context (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). In POB literature, self-efficacy is viewed as a global measure, which causes people “to come across as confident individuals over time and across situations” (Avey, Luthans, & Youseff, 2010, p. 435). In general, individuals with low self-efficacy are easily convinced that efforts to address difficult challenges are futile, while those with high self-efficacy tend to perceive challenges as surmountable given sufficient effort (Bandura, 1982).

The second component is hope. According to Snyder, Irving, and Anderson (1991, p. 287), it is “a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals).” This construct includes both the drive an individual experiences to accomplish a specific task or a goal (i.e., agency) and his or her psychological resources to find multiple, alternative paths to achieving the desired goals (i.e., pathways). Hopeful people are more likely to have established functional goals, providing themselves with directed motivation to work toward these goals on a daily basis (Snyder, 2002).

The third component is resilience. Luthans (2002b, p. 702) defined it as “the capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress, and increased responsibility.” It is characterized by positive coping and adaptation in the face of adverse and stressful events (Masten & Reed, 2002). Resilient individuals tend to have (1) a firm acceptance of reality, (2) a deep belief, often buttressed by strongly held values, that life is meaningful, and (3) an astounding ability to improvise and adapt to significant changes in their lives (Avey, Patera, & West, 2006; Coutu, 2002).

The last component is optimism. As pointed out by Seligman (1998), optimism is both a positively oriented future expectation and an attributional style. People who are optimistic interpret specific positive events through personal, permanent, and pervasive causes and negative events through external, temporary, and situation-specific causes (Avey et al., 2010; Seligman, 1998). They expect good things to happen to them, and believe that they have the abilities to cause positive events in the future (Carver & Scheier, 2002).

It has been argued that the above psychological capacities share self-directed motivating mechanisms and processes (Peterson et al., 2009), and they would affect individual’s work attitudes and behaviors. Previous studies have shown that PsyCap is positively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and absenteeism (Avey et al., 2006, 2010; Luthans, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). In career research, self-efficacy and hope have been found to be associated with career development skills and outcomes (Sung, Turner, & Kaewchinda, 2013), and expected career performance and satisfaction (Conklin, Dahling, & Garcia, 2012).

Hypotheses Development

As suggested by Bem (1974), gender role orientation represents the extent to which an individual believes that he or she possesses traits that are associated with traditional gender stereotypes. The first dimension is masculinity, which pertains to the beliefs about the extent to which one possesses traits associated with men such as aggressiveness, ambition, dominance, and independence. The other dimension is femininity, referring to the beliefs about the extent to which one possesses traits associated with women such as compassion, sensitivity to the needs of others, understanding, and warmth (Bem, 1974; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). These two dimensions have been found to exert substantial effects on individual’s orientations, social behaviors, and psychological functioning and well-being (Eagly et al., 2000; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Whitley, 1984).

Job and career satisfaction represent an individual’s perception of his or her work life, and they are viewed as the key indicators of subjective career success (Heslin, 2005; Ng et al., 2005). Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences.” As argued by Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999), individuals who are dissatisfied with many aspects of their jobs are unlikely to consider their careers as successful. Career satisfaction refers to the satisfaction an individual derives from the intrinsic and extrinsic aspect of his or her career (Judge et al., 1995). It is the subjective perception and evaluation of one’s career progression and success, based on one’s expectations and goals (Loi & Ngo, 2010).

At work, masculinity is associated with an instrumental orientation, a cognitive focus on getting the job done or the problem solved (Marshall & Wijting, 1980). It is positively related to an individual’s achievement motivation (Heilbrun, 1963). Previous research has shown that high-masculinity individuals have a high level of career centeredness and career commitment (Marshall & Wijting, 1980; Powell & Posner, 1989). In other words, they are more concerned with their careers and are willing to expend more time and effort to enhance career success. Masculinity has been found to be associated with career progression and satisfaction for both male and female managers (Motowidlo, 1982; Wong, Kettlewell, & Sproule, 1985). Jagacinski (1987) also reported that high-masculinity engineers expressed greater satisfaction with their jobs than low masculinity engineers.

On the other hand, femininity is associated with an expressive orientation, an affective concern for the welfare of others, and the harmony of the group (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Marshall & Wijting, 1980). High-femininity individuals enjoy a high level of job satisfaction when they maintain good interpersonal relationships and receive organizational support (Richardsen, Mikkelsen, & Burke, 1997; Smith et al., 1998). In addition, they tend to value their family role more, achieve a better balance between work and family life, and perceive less work–family conflict (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). As revealed in the study by Martins, Eddleston, and Veiga (2002), work–family conflict is negatively associated with career satisfaction.

According to Powell, Butterfield, and Parent (2002), contemporary work environments often emphasize the values of masculine traits over feminine traits. As compared with high-femininity individuals, high-masculinity individuals tend to have better work adjustment and work performance. Hence, they are likely to enjoy higher job satisfaction (Dodson & Borders, 2006) and perceive greater career success (Kirchmeyer, 1998). On the other hand, high-femininity individuals may experience more role stress and a lack of person–organization fit, which in turn reduces their satisfaction at work (Bay, Allen, & Njoroge, 2001). Based on the discussion above, we propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1a: Masculinity has a stronger effect on an individual’s job satisfaction than femininity.

Hypothesis 1b: Masculinity has a stronger effect on an individual’s career satisfaction than femininity.

The linkage between gender role orientation and PsyCap has not been examined in previous research. Arguably, masculinity and femininity may facilitate individual’s development of certain social skills and psychological capacities (Ngo & Ji, 2012). High-masculinity individuals tend to be more task oriented, aggressive, and independent, while high-femininity individuals tend to be more relationship oriented and sensitive to the needs of others (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). As they have different traits and motivational tendencies, they are likely to acquire and develop different skills and competencies at work. For example, individuals who are high in masculinity often have a strong achievement motivation (Heilbrun, 1963; Marshall & Wijting, 1980) and are eager to develop more PsyCap that can enhance their work performance.

In a study of gender role orientation and career choice, Gianakos (1995) reported that individuals high in masculinity prefer careers that offer challenging opportunities, and they have a strong self-efficacy in career decision making. Besides, Long (1989) found that, among a group of working women, gender role orientation is related to self-efficacy in career. Specifically, high-masculinity women have a higher level of self-efficacy in career than low masculinity women.

Some other studies provide evidence that gender role orientation may be associated with various components of PsyCap. First, Stets (1995) noted that a masculine identity is linked to the mastery identity (i.e., “I am a competent person,” which indicates a high level of self-efficacy). Eichinger, Heifetz, and Ingraham (1991) reported that masculinity generated a stronger feeling of personal accomplishment than femininity, even for working women. Second, Ptacek, Smith, and Dodge (1994) showed that gender role orientation explained gender differences in coping with stress. One may thus expect a positive relationship between masculinity and resilience. Third, Wong, Kettlewell, and Sproule (1985) pointed out that masculine individuals tend to attribute their career performance more internally and less externally than feminine individuals. Following the logic, people high in masculinity would have a higher level of optimism than those high in femininity. Finally, given that masculinity pertains to ambition, assertiveness, and self-assurance, such an orientation would be conducive to the development of hope. All in all, since femininity pertains to compassion, gentleness, and nurturance, its relationship with PsyCap would not be as strong as masculinity’s relationship. The following hypothesis is put forward:

Hypothesis 2: Compared to femininity, masculinity has a stronger effect on an individual’s level of PsyCap.

In an earlier section, we suggested a relationship exists between gender role orientation and subjective career success; yet, the underlying mechanism for the relationship has not been explored in previous studies. We argue that PsyCap could be a possible mediator which accounts for why individuals high in masculinity have a higher level of job and career satisfaction than those high in femininity. Viewed as positive psychological strength, PsyCap has been found to be predictive of individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in the workplace (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011; Luthans et al., 2008).

According to the psychological resource theory (Hobfoll, 2002), a high level of PsyCap may facilitate employees’ goal achievement and success at work, which then leads to increased job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1995; Salgado & Moscoso, 2000). As argued by Avey et al. (2011), individuals who are higher in PsyCap expect good things to happen at work (i.e., optimism), believe they create their own success (i.e., self-efficacy and hope), and are more impervious to setbacks (i.e., resilience) when compared with those lower in PsyCap. Given the general expectancy of personal success derived from hope and optimism, and the belief in personal abilities derived from self-efficacy, people who are high in PsyCap would have a stronger work motivation and be more satisfied with their jobs (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). Besides, PsyCap has been found to be positively related to individuals’ work performance (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2008). With better performance, an individual tends to have more career advancement and perceives greater success in his or her career (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Furthermore, PsyCap can energize employees and enhance their work engagement (Avey et al., 2011), which in turn promotes a sense of achievement in terms of career goals and career satisfaction (Hirschi, 2011). Accordingly, we expect PsyCap to play a mediating role in the relationship between gender role orientation and subjective career success.

Hypothesis 3a: PsyCap mediates the relationship between gender role orientation and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3b: PsyCap mediates the relationship between gender role orientation and career satisfaction.

Method

Sample and Procedures

The data for this study were collected from 362 employees of three large companies in China in 2009. These companies are engaged in different industries, including energy, telecommunication, and manufacturing of multimedia electronics. With the permission of the senior management and the help of human resource departments in these companies, a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the selected employees, the majority of whom are technical, marketing, and administrative staff. On the cover page of the questionnaire, we explained the purpose of the study and assured confidentiality of responses. We further protected the respondents’ anonymity by asking them to return the completed questionnaire directly to us in a sealed envelope.

Of the respondents, 49.6% were male, 50.4% were female, and 72.7% were married. Their average organizational tenure was 9.48 years. The distribution of the respondents among the three companies was 133 (36.7%), 124 (34.3%), and 105 (29.0%), respectively.

Measures

The questionnaires were developed using some well-established scales from Western researchers, which were then translated and administered in Chinese. Back translation was conducted where the original English version was translated into Chinese and then translated back into English to ensure proper translation. Respondents used 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) to respond to the items in the following measures, except for control variables.

Gender Role Orientation

The two dimensions of gender role orientation, masculinity and femininity were assessed using a short version of Bem’s (1974) Sex-Role Inventory. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which 10 masculine items (e.g., “independent,” “assertive,” and “having leadership abilities”) and 10 feminine items (e.g., “affectionate,” “sympathetic,” and “warm”) described themselves. The masculine items were averaged to obtain a masculinity score, with a coefficient α of .78. Similarly, the feminine items were averaged to obtain a femininity score, with a coefficient α of .85.

PsyCap

We used different scales to measure the four components of PsyCap. First, self-efficacy was measured using the 8-item scale developed by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001). A sample item is “I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.” In this study, this scale had a coefficient α of .86. Second, hope was measured by 3 items selected from the scale developed by Snyder et al. (1996). A sample item is “I can think of many ways to achieve my work goals.” The coefficient α of this 3-item scale was .75. Third, resilience was measured by a 4-item scale developed by Wagnild and Young (1993). A sample item is “I usually take stressful things at work in stride.” The coefficient α of this scale in this study was .77. Fourth, optimism was measured by a 4-item scale developed by Scheier and Carver (1985). A sample item is “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job.” The coefficient α of this scale was .76.

Job Satisfaction

We measured job satisfaction by a 3-item scale developed by Price and Meuller (1981). A sample item is, “I find real enjoyment in my job.” This scale had a coefficient α of .86.

Career Satisfaction

This variable was assessed with the 5-item scale developed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990). A sample item is “I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals.” The coefficient α was .94.

Control Variables

Several variables were included in the statistical analysis, as they may affect the two outcome variables. First, gender was measured as a dummy variable coded 0 if the respondent was male and coded 1 if the respondent was female. Second, organization tenure was measured by the number of years the respondent was employed in his or her firm. Finally, since our respondents came from three different firms, we included two dummy variables, firm A and firm B, to capture the possible effect of firm differences.

Because all data were collected through a single survey, it is possible that our study may suffer from the problem of common method variance. To deal with this, we followed the suggestion of Podsakoff and Organ (1986) to conduct a Harman’s one-factor test with all the measurement items. Ten factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 were identified, which together explained 66.53% of the total variance in the independent and dependent variables. We found that no single factor emerged and dominated among the measures, with the first factor explaining only 26.84% of the total variance. In view of this, we believe that common method variance should not pose a serious threat in our study.

Analytical Strategy

We started with descriptive statistical analysis and followed by multiple regression analyses that tested the hypotheses. Separate analyses were conducted for job satisfaction and career satisfaction, the two dependent variables in the present study. The predictors included the control variables and the two dimensions of gender role orientation. To test for the mediating effects, we adopted the procedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). We first demonstrated the significant effects of gender role orientation on the various components of PsyCap. We then compared the results of different regression models for the outcome variables, particularly those with the four components of PsyCap as predictors and those without. The existence of mediating effects can be indicated by (1) significant effects of the mediators in the full model and (2) a substantial reduction of the effects of gender role orientation in the full model, as compared to the model without the mediators.

Results

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables. The respondents reported a high level of job satisfaction ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 4.53) and a moderate level of career satisfaction ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 3.81). The mean score of femininity ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 4.55) was higher than that of masculinity ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 4.18). As expected, both job satisfaction and career satisfaction were positively correlated with masculinity and femininity. These two outcome variables were also positively correlated with the four components of PsyCap.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables.

Variables	$\overset{ˉ}{x}$	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Firm A	0.37	0.48
2. Firm B	0.34	0.48	−0.55**
3. Tenure	9.48	7.01	−0.17**	0.56**
4. Gender (female = 1)	0.51	0.50	−0.02	0.13*	−0.02
5. Masculinity	4.18	0.78	0.21**	−0.17**	−0.08	−0.11*
6. Femininity	4.55	0.78	0.16**	−0.04	0.04	0.03	0.32**
7. Self-efficacy	4.96	0.71	0.12**	−0.17**	−0.03	−0.12*	0.46**	0.27**
8. Hope	4.66	0.94	−0.02	−0.14**	0.05	−0.22**	0.42**	0.15**	0.69**
9. Resilience	4.60	0.89	0.13*	−0.17**	0.02	−0.22**	0.44**	0.24**	0.66**	0.66**
10. Optimism	4.38	0.95	0.04	−0.11*	0.01	−0.06	0.39**	0.24**	0.48**	0.53**	0.54**
11. Job satisfaction	4.53	1.06	0.05	−0.03	0.08	0.01	0.30**	0.25**	0.47**	0.44**	0.43**	0.48**
12. Career satisfaction	3.81	1.24	0.12*	−0.07	0.05	−0.01	0.26**	0.23**	0.30**	0.35**	0.28**	0.40**	0.58**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2 reports the results of regression analyses on job satisfaction and career satisfaction. Models 1 and 4 evaluated the effects of control variables, which were negligible. In Model 2 in which job satisfaction is the dependent variable, when the two gender role orientations were entered, the model fit has significantly improved as indicated by adjusted R ² and the associated F-ratio. Specifically, the β coefficient for masculinity was 0.25 (p < .001), which was greater than the coefficient for femininity (β = 0.17, p < .01). This provides support for Hypothesis 1a. Similarly, in Model 5 in which career satisfaction is the dependent variable, the β coefficient for masculinity (β = 0.22, p < .001) was also larger than that of femininity (β = 0.16, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1b is also supported by our data.

Table 2.

Regression Results for Various Components of Psychological Capital.

Variables	Self-efficacy	Hope	Resilience	Optimism
Firm A	−0.08	−0.24***	−0.04	−0.13*
Firm B	−0.16*	−0.29***	−0.18*	−0.17*
Tenure	0.08	0.20***	0.13*	0.10
Gender (female = 1)	−0.06	−0.14**	−0.16**	0.01
Masculinity	0.40***	0.42***	0.38***	0.34***
Femininity	0.16**	0.03	0.11*	0.14**
Adjusted R ²	0.24	0.26	0.24	0.16
F ratio	19.03***	20.79***	19.23***	11.77***
N	346	345	346	345

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 2 states that gender role orientation is related to PsyCap. Table 2 shows the regression results regarding the effects of masculinity and femininity on the four components of PsyCap. All the models were statistically significant, as indicated by the F-ratio. In line with what we hypothesized, masculinity had a strong and positive effect on self-efficacy (β = 0.40, p < .001), hope (β = 0.42, p < .001), resilience (β = 0.38, p < .001), and optimism (β = 0.34, p < .001). Compared with masculinity, femininity had a weaker effect on self-efficacy (β = 0.16, p < .01), resilience (β = 0.11, p < .05), and optimism (β = 0.14, p < .01), and it had no effect on hope (β = 0.03, ns). In view of these findings, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3a and b suggests that PsyCap mediates the effect of gender role orientation on job and career satisfaction. As shown in Table 3, when the four components of PsyCap were entered into Model 3, the original effects of masculinity and femininity in Model 2 disappeared. Their coefficients became insignificant (β = 0.00 and 0.09, respectively). Among the various components of PsyCap, it was found that self-efficacy (β = 0.17, p < .05) and optimism (β = 0.28, p < .001) had significant and positive effects on the dependent variable. This implies that these two variables fully mediated the effect of gender role orientation on job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3a is thus supported by our data.

Table 3.

Regression Results for Job and Career Satisfaction.

Variables	Job satisfaction			Career satisfaction
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Firm A	0.01	−0.06	0.02	0.11	0.04	0.12*
Firm B	−0.10	−0.10	0.03	−0.08	−0.08	0.02
Tenure	0.13	0.13*	0.06	0.11	0.12	0.05
Gender (female = 1)	0.03	0.50	0.09	−0.00	0.02	0.04
Masculinity		0.25***	0.00		0.22***	0.05
Femininity		0.17**	0.09		0.16**	0.12*
Self-efficacy			0.17*			−0.02
Hope			0.12			0.21**
Resilience			0.10			−0.03
Optimism			0.28***			0.28***
Adjusted R ²	0.00	0.11	0.32	0.01	0.10	0.21
F ratio	1.09	20.93***	27.64***	2.21	7.27***	10.13***
N	345	345	345	345	345	345

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A similar analysis was then conducted for career satisfaction as the dependent variable. In Model 6, when the four components of PsyCap were entered into the model, the original effect of masculinity in the previous model disappeared while the original effect of femininity was substantially reduced. The β coefficient for masculinity became insignificant (β = 0.05), and the β coefficient for femininity (β = 0.12) was significant at the .05 level. As regards the various components of PsyCap, hope (β = 0.21, p < .01) and optimism (β = 0.28, p < .001) had significant and positive effects on the dependent variable. Taken together, the above findings suggest that hope and optimism fully mediated the effect of masculinity and partially mediated the effect of femininity on career satisfaction. In other words, Hypothesis 3b was also supported.

Discussion and Conclusions

Drawing on gender role theory, we developed a model to examine how gender role orientation affects subjective career success for Chinese employees. Specifically, we predicted that masculinity exerts a stronger effect on job and career satisfaction than femininity. We also predicted that gender role orientation is associated with an individual’s level of PsyCap, which in turn affects the two outcome variables. Our empirical results showed that both masculinity and femininity were positively related to job and career satisfaction, and masculinity had a greater impact. The effect of masculinity on the four components of PsyCap was also found to be stronger than that of femininity. Our analysis further indicated that PsyCap plays a mediating role in the relationship between gender role orientation and the outcome variables.

Our study makes two theoretical and empirical contributions to current literature. First of all, we showed that gender role orientation plays a salient role in affecting an individual’s evaluation of his or her career success, above and beyond the effect of biological sex. Given that gender role orientation is related to one’s career goals and motivation (Bay et al., 2001; Ngo & Ji, 2012), future studies on gender and career outcomes should pay attention to its possible impacts. In countries like China with a clear demarcation of gender roles, the influence of gender role orientation on an individual’s career attainment should not be overlooked.

Second, we proposed and tested whether PsyCap mediates the effect of gender role orientation on an individual’s job and career satisfaction. The various components of PsyCap were found to exert different mediating effects in this regard. Specifically, self-efficacy and optimism fully mediated the effect of gender role orientation on job satisfaction. We also found that hope and optimism fully mediated the effect of masculinity, and partially mediated the effect of femininity, on career satisfaction. However, no significant mediating effect was found for resilience on job and career satisfaction. In view of these new findings, more research should be conducted to evaluate the roles played by the various components of PsyCap on an individual’s career management and subsequent outcomes.

As with any research, our study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional nature of our data does not allow for rigorous testing of causality between the studied variables. Second, our data were collected from self-reports. Hence, the results of our study may be contaminated by common method bias. We have tried to deal with this issue by conducting Harman’s one-factor test. Third, our samples mainly included technical, marketing, and administrative employees in three large firms, and thus were not representative of the general working population in China. This restricts the generalization of our findings. Fourth, we have not included some job-related factors (such as job level and job type) as control variables in our regression analyses, and these factors may affect the work satisfaction of employees. Finally, in our study, we focus on job and career satisfaction to represent an individual’s subjective career success. It is desirable to include some measures of objective career success, such as promotions, total compensation, and organizational positions.

To conclude, the present study highlights the importance of gender role orientation in affecting individual’s PsyCap, job satisfaction, and career satisfaction. Our empirical evidence showed that, as compared with those high in femininity, high-masculinity individuals possess a high level of PsyCap, and they have a more positive evaluation of their work environment and career. Our study provides some new insights into research on gender roles and career success, particularly in the Chinese setting. To extend the generalizability of our findings, this study should be replicated in other organizational and national contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation of China (Project Number: 71121001).

References

Avey

J. B.

Luthans

Youssef

C. M.

(2010). The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430–452.

Avey

J. B.

Patera

J. L.

West

B. J.

(2006). Positive psychological capital: A new lens to view absenteeism. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 42–60.

Avey

J. B.

Reichard

R. J.

Luthans

Mhatre

K. H.

(2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127–156.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychology, 37, 122–147.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bay

Allen

M. F.

Njoroge

(2001). Gender orientation, success and job satisfaction in accounting academia. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 8, 1–20.

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Burn

S. M.

(1995). The social psychology of gender. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. S.

(2002). Optimism. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

11.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Eden

(2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.

12.

Conklin

A. M.

Dahling

J. J.

Garcia

P. A

. (2012). Linking affective commitment, career self-efficacy, and outcome expectations: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development. Retrieved from http://jcd.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/19/0894845311423534

13.

Coutu

D. L.

(2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80, 46–55.

14.

Crosby

F. J.

(1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Currier

C. L.

(2007). Redefining ‘labor’ in Beijing: Women’s attitudes on work and reform. Asian Journal of Women’ s Studies, 13, 71–108.

16.

Deaux

LaFrance

(1998). Gender. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 788–827). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

17.

Dodson

T. A.

Borders

L. D.

(2006). Men in traditional and non-traditional careers: Gender role attitudes, gender role conflict, and job satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly, 54, 283–296.

18.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

Diekman

A. B.

(2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Eddleston

K. A.

Powell

G. N.

(2008). The role of gender identity in explaining sex differences in business owners’ career satisfier preferences. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 244–256.

21.

Eddleston

K. A.

Veiga

J. F.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). Explaining sex differences in managerial career satisfier preferences: The role of gender self-schema. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 437–445.

22.

Eichinger

Heifetz

L. J.

Ingraham

(1991). Situational shifts in sex-role orientation: Correlates of work satisfaction and burnout among women in special education. Sex Roles, 25, 425–440.

23.

Gianakos

(1995). The relation of sex-role identity to career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 131–143.

24.

Granrose

C. S.

(2007). Gender differences in career perceptions in the People’s Republic of China. Career Development International, 12, 9–27.

25.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Parasuraman

Wormley

W. M.

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance, evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86.

26.

Heilbrun

A. B.

Jr. (1963). Sex-role identity and achievement motivation. Psychological Reports, 12, 483–490.

27.

Heslin

P. A.

(2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 113–136.

28.

Hirschi

(2011). Vocational identity as a mediator of the relationship between core self-evaluations and life and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 622–644.

29.

Hobfoll

(2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324.

30.

Jagacinski

C. M.

(1987). Androgyny in a male-dominated field: The relationship of sex-typed traits to performance and satisfaction in engineering. Sex Roles, 17, 529–547.

31.

Judge

T. A.

Cable

D. M.

Boudreau

J. W.

Bretz

R. D.

(1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.

32.

Judge

T. A.

Higgins

C. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Barrick

M. R.

(1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.

33.

Kidder

D. L.

(2002). The influence of gender on performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28, 629–648.

34.

Kirchmeyer

(1998). Determinants of managerial career success: Evidence and explanation of male/female differences. Journal of Management, 24, 673–692.

35.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and cause of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1319–1328). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

36.

Loi

Ngo

H. Y.

(2010). Mobility norms, risk aversion, and career satisfaction of Chinese employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 237–255.

37.

Long

B. C.

(1989). Sex-role orientation, coping strategies, and self-efficacy of women in traditional and nontraditional occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 307–324.

38.

Luthans

(2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.

39.

Luthans

(2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.

40.

Luthans

Avey

J. B.

Norman

S. M.

(2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572.

41.

Luthans

Norman

S. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Avey

J. B.

(2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219–238.

42.

Luthans

Youssef

C. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

43.

Marshall

S. J.

Wijting

J. P.

(1980). Relationships of achievement motivation and sex-role identity to college women’s career orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 299–311.

44.

Martins

L. L.

Eddleston

K. A.

Veiga

J. F.

(2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399–409.

45.

Masten

A. S.

Reed

M. G. J.

(2002). Resilience in development. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

46.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(1982). Sex role orientation and behavior in a work setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 935–945.

47.

T. W. H.

Ely

L. T.

Sorensen

K. L.

Feldman

D. C.

(2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

48.

Ngo

H. Y.

M. S.

(2012). Gender differences in psychological capital. In McGeown

S. P.

(Ed.), Psychology of gender differences (pp. 146–159). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

49.

Peterson

S. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Byron

Myrowitz

(2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348–368.

50.

Phelan

(1994). The paradox of the contented female worker: An assessment of alternative explanations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 95–107.

51.

Pimentel

E. E.

(2006). Gender ideology, household behavior, and backlash in urban China. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 341–365.

52.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.

53.

Powell

G. N.

Butterfield

D. A.

Parent

J. D.

(2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.

54.

Powell

G. N.

Greenhaus

J. H.

(2010). Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 513–534.

55.

Powell

G. N.

Posner

B. Z.

(1989). Commitment to career versus family/home life: Effects of sex, sex role identity, and family status. Psychological Reports, 64, 695–698.

56.

Price

J. L.

Meuller

C. W.

(1981). Professional turnover: The case of nurses. New York, NY: Spectrum.

57.

Ptacek

J. T.

Smith

R. E.

Dodge

K. L.

(1994). Gender differences in coping with stress: When stressor and appraisals do not differ. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 421–432.

58.

Richardsen

A. M.

Mikkelsen

Burke

R. L.

(1997). Work experiences and career and job satisfaction among professional and managerial women in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, 209–218.

59.

Salgado

J. F.

Moscoso

(2000). Self-efficacy and organizational performance criteria. Apuntes de Psicoolgia, 18, 179–191.

60.

Scheier

Carver

(1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.

61.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(1998). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Pocket Books.

62.

Sharpe

M. J.

Heppner

P. P.

(1991). Gender role, gender-role conflict, and psychological well-being in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 323–330.

63.

Smith

P. L.

Smits

S. J.

Hoy

(1998). Employee work attitudes: The subtle influence of gender. Human Relations, 51, 649–666.

64.

Snyder

C. R.

Simpson

S. C.

Ybasco

F. C.

Borders

T. F.

Babyak

M. A.

Higgins

R. L.

(1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335.

65.

Snyder

C. R.

(2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–276.

66.

Snyder

C. R.

Irving

Anderson

(1991). Hope and health. In Snyder

C. R.

Forsyth

D. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 285–305). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

67.

Stajkovic

A. D.

Luthans

(1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.

68.

Stets

J. E.

(1995). Role identities and person identities: Gender identity, mastery identity, and controlling one’s partner. Sociological Perspectives, 38, 129–150.

69.

Summerfield

(1994). Economic reforms and the employment of Chinese women. Journal of Economic Issues, 28, 715–732.

70.

Sung

Turner

S. L.

Kaewchinda

(2013). Career development skills, outcomes, and hope among college students. Journal of Career Development, 40, 127–145. First published on March 9, 2012. doi:10.1177/0894845311431939

71.

Wagnild

Young

(1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.

72.

Whitley

B. E.

Jr. (1984). Sex-role orientation and psychological adjustment: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12, 207–225.

73.

Witt

L. A.

Nye

L. G.

(1992). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 910–917.

74.

Wong

P. T. P.

Kettlewell

Sproule

C. F.

(1985). On the importance of being masculine: Sex role, attribution, and women’s career achievement. Sex Roles, 12, 757–769.

75.

Youssef

C. M.

Luthans

(2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resiliency. Journal of Management, 33, 774–800.

76.

Zhang

N. J.

(2006). Gender role egalitarian attitudes among Chinese college students. Sex Roles, 55, 545–553.