Sex Differences in Motivational Traits and Ethical Decision Making among Graduating Accounting Majors

Abstract

This study is an empirical examination of possible differences between female and male accounting majors' managerial motivational traits, perceptions of ethical issues, ethical judgments, and ethical behavioral intentions regarding ethically equivocal business situations. Subjects were presented with two scales to measure their motivational traits, two ethically equivalent scenarios, and scales to measure perceptions of ethical issues, ethical judgments, and ethical behavioral intentions. Male subjects scored significantly higher than females on managerial motivational traits. Also, male respondents viewed both scenarios as significantly more unethical than females. Further, males indicated that they would be more likely than females to engage in the behaviors presented in the ethically equivocal scenarios. Implications of these findings are presented as they relate to fewer women accounting firm partners than men. ********** Gender differences among accountants have been a topic of study since the dawn of the sexual revolution. Prior to that, although many women worked in the accounting field, there was little interest in exploring this matter. However, since the late 1980s, over one half of all new graduates who earn accounting degrees are women. In spite of this, the retention rate to partnership among women remains low. This dearth of female partners in major accounting firms continues even in the face of increased societal attention to diversity issues. Explanations for this situation are complex and not likely to consist of simple causal factors. Possible reasons for the relatively low number of women who attain partnership status in accounting firms may be behavioral or attitudinal differences among the sexes. A number of investigators have explored possible causal factors behind this phenomenon, but there is little agreement as to why it exists. While various situational and personal factors have been hypothesized to influence attainment of partnership status in accounting firms, our understanding of such relationships has been incomplete. The overall purpose of this exploratory research was to add to our understanding as to why male accountants attain partnership status in accounting firms more frequently than females do. More specifically, we wanted to examine whether or not the differences between male and female accountants who attain partnership status may be partially explained by differences in leadership traits and ethical attitudes and likely behaviors. Developing a better understanding of possible relations between these personal variables and females' failure to attain partnership status in accounting firms could add to our understanding of factors that may contribute to this inequity. Literature Review and Research Questions Various attempts have been made to explain the differences in rates at which males accountants and female accountants attain partner status in accounting firms. For example, Collins (1993) focused on both job related stress in accounting and extra-organizational factors to determine the exit decision from accounting. The study concluded that women experience a higher level of job-related tension than males. Thus, following the logic that this stress was a major reason for employee turnover, women would naturally exit the profession more frequently than men. This researcher suggested that efforts to reduce stress for women might reduce the higher exit rate for women. Reed et al. (1994) examined job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and locus of control with respect to employee turnover. The authors presented an extensive historical perspective of women in the workplace, demonstrating the remarkable progress women have made over the last century, yet a persistent lagging in the current world. Their findings, using the locus of control and internal stress, supported gender differences and the female tendency to internalize stress more than males. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.