Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

 

---

 
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition 
538
Facilitators. As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell, a cut-off of .32 was used for interpretation of 
factor loadings. For the facilitator items, the results show that the variable loadings reached an acceptable standard. 
Factor 1 included 11 items which measured personal effort and external support and was labeled 
External 
(Items included: opportunities, mobility, network, support and guidance from a mentor, personal sacrifice, luck, 
family, educational qualifications, goal, job knowledge, and personality). Target factor loadings for factor 1 ranged 
from .41 to .67. Factor 2 included 4 items which measured character and ability. This factor was named 
Character 
(hardwork, problem solving skills, effective communication skills, and attitude). Target factor loadings for factor 2 
ranged from .50 to .60. The two factors accounted for 33.2% of the total variance. The results of the factor analysis 
for 
External
and 
Character
factors were similar to the pilot study on dimensionality of these variables.
 
Constraints. Three constraint factors were extracted. Factor 1 included six items measuring equity in the 
workplace. Factor 2 included five items which measured issues related to family and childcare, and factor 3 included 
four items which measured lack of mentor and role models. The three factors
 
were labeled 
Equity 
(equity in 
promotion, equity in training, lack of equity in pay, sexual harassment, old boy network, and credibility)
, family 
Issues 
(childcare responsibilities, being a single parent, being married, conflicts with family responsibilities and job 
characteristics), and
 Lack of support 
(lack of mentor, lack of role models, inadequate knowledge, and lack of work 
support) respectively. The loadings ranged from .57 to .87 for
 Equity
, .38 to .92 for 
Family Issues
and .41 to .87 for 
Lack of support.
The three factors accounted for 54.8% of the total variance. The results of the factor analysis for the 
constraint items were similar to the pilot study results. One difference was that “difficulty in establishing 
credibility,” which was deleted in the pilot study due to its lower loading, was extracted into the 
Equity
factor.
Gender 
Issues. The seven gender issue statements entered into the analysis loaded on two factors: 
Advancement
and 
Treatment.
The loadings for 
Advancement 
(such as: the factors that facilitate and constrain career 
advancement are different from males and females, females face significant obstacles to career advancement in the 
hospitality industry)
 
ranged from .73 to .83, and for 
Treatment 
(Male/female managers treat female/male employee 
differently)
, 
loadings ranged from .57 to .90. The two factors accounted for 71.33% of the total variance. The results 
of the factor analysis for 
Gender Issues
differed from the pilot which generated only one factor for the seven items.
Based on the results of the factor analysis, seven factors were accepted for subsequent use as dependent 
variables to compare gender and group effects on women’s career advancement. Overall mean scores were 
generated for the seven factors ranging from 3.19 to 4.70. The alpha values of the seven factors ranged from .66 to 
.88, which exceeded the minimum hurdle of 0.6 (Hair, et al., 2005).