One explanation for the difference in perspectives may be found in the schema
research. In this study, managers seemed to be more influenced by gender stereotypes
such that they perceived women as more helpful and more compliant than their male
counterparts (Kidder & McLean Parks, 2001). It is a well-established fact that supervisors
use schemas and short cuts in evaluating employees’ performance dimensions (Lord &
Foti, 1986; Park, Sims, & Motowidlo, 1986) but these short-cuts may need to be
reconsidered to the extent to which they create false impressions of exhibited behaviors.
Alerting managers to be more self-aware as well as administering, and taking into
account 360-degree feedback results, may help minimize some of these biases.
As with any study, this one has some limitations. For instance, one of the
limitations is presented by its cross-sectional design. While there is a theoretical logic to
expect that relationships will flow in a certain directions (from culture to roles and from
roles to behaviors), having the measurements taken roughly in the same point in time
does not facilitate causal explanation. However, reverse-causality is not a very likely
explanation for the relationship between culture and cognitive roles as individual role
perceptions are unlikely to influence coworkers’ perceptions of culture. The direction of
the relationship between roles and behaviors also seem to be straightforward in terms of
theoretical reasoning. Therefore, while the possibility for reverse causality can’t be
completely rejected, it should not be a great concern for this study.
In addition, the number of respondents for some of the aggregate constructs was
relatively low, thus, contributing to lower group reliability values. For instance,
measuring culture from the perspective of roughly three employees may not be sufficient