HOW DO GENDER BIASES IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AFFECT THE

EXPERIENCES OF FEMALES EMPLOYED AT DEALERSHIPS?

Rebecca R. Black

An honors thesis submitted to the faculty of the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Chapel Hill
2021

Approved by Sharon Cannon

 ABSTRACT

Rebecca R. Black: How Do Gender Biases in the Automotive Industry Affect the Experiences of
Females Employed at Dealerships?
(Under the direction of Sharon Cannon)

The automotive industry, as studies suggest, has denied females decades of opportunities,

advancement, and respect. Studies show males tend to perceive female customers and employees

as less knowledgeable. However, the experiences of females employed in automobile dealerships

are not adequately explored in existing literature. Research should consider dealerships in the

industry’s gender debate because dealerships are the preferred car-buying method. Therefore,

this study investigates the experiences of females employed in automobile dealerships using

qualitative and quantitative methods in a survey of over 100 participants. My survey reveals that

participants feel strongly regarding whether or not gender biases exist in automobile dealerships;

most participants either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed as to the existence of gender biases

in their dealerships. Based on the skewed results, I segmented participants into three distinct

groups and analyzed data among the three. Researchers should pursue further studies examining

female perception of gender biases in dealerships.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis was successfully completed with the support and mentorship from several

individuals. I would be remiss if I did not recognize their contributions to this work:

Dr. Sharon Cannon — thank you for your consistent efforts and guidance since day one. I

am so appreciative of the time and resources you shared to make this research possible.

Dr. Patricia Harms — thank you for seeing my potential to participate in the honors thesis

program. I greatly value your expertise and assistance in polishing this work.

Dr. Jessica Christian and Dr. Elizabeth Dickinson — thank you for serving on my

committee and dedicating your time to oversee the completion of my thesis.

My Family — thank you for your unending support and for being a listening ear when I

needed one. I could not have done this without you.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

Personal Background................................................................................................................... 1

Industry Background ................................................................................................................... 1

Roadmap of Thesis ...................................................................................................................... 3

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5

Trends of Patronization in the Industry over Time ..................................................................... 5

Perceptions of Females in the Industry ....................................................................................... 8

Female Employee Performance in the Industry ........................................................................ 10

Promotional and Pay Differences on the Basis of Gender in the Industry ................................ 12

Roadblocks and Accelerators to Progress ................................................................................. 15

Roadblocks to Progress ......................................................................................................... 15

Accelerators to Progress ........................................................................................................ 17

Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 17

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 19

Selection of Survey Participants ............................................................................................... 19

Design of Survey Questions ...................................................................................................... 20

iv
 Open-Ended Questions .......................................................................................................... 21

Likert-Scale Statements ......................................................................................................... 21

Methods to Evaluate Survey Results......................................................................................... 23

Limitations of My Methodology ............................................................................................... 24

RESEARCH FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 26

Overall Results and Technique for Analysis ............................................................................. 26

Industry Demographics.......................................................................................................... 26

Open-Ended Responses ......................................................................................................... 27

Likert-Scale Responses.......................................................................................................... 28

Segmentation of Polarized Results ........................................................................................ 31

Segment 1: Gender Bias Conscious Participants ...................................................................... 32

Open-Ended Responses ......................................................................................................... 32

Likert-Scale Responses.......................................................................................................... 36

Segment 2: Gender Bias Unaffected Participants ..................................................................... 39

Open-Ended Responses ......................................................................................................... 39

Likert-Scale Responses.......................................................................................................... 40

Segment 3: Gender Bias Skeptic Participants ........................................................................... 42

Open-Ended Responses ......................................................................................................... 42

Likert-Scale Responses.......................................................................................................... 43

Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 45

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 46

Discussion of Findings .............................................................................................................. 46

Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 48

v
 Interview Implications............................................................................................................... 49

Future Research ......................................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW WITH KITTY VAN BORTEL .................................................... 53

APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL ................................................................................................ 63

APPENDIX C: RESEARCH PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ............................................. 65

APPENDIX D: HISTOGRAMS OF SKEWED DATA ............................................................... 68

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 72

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Overall (Non-Segmented) Likert-Scale Data ................................................................. 30

Table 2: Female Employee Experiences with Customers............................................................. 33

Table 3: Female Employee Experiences with Male Employees ................................................... 34

Table 4: Social Exclusion and Sexualization within Dealerships ................................................. 35

Table 5: Segment 1 Likert-Scale Data .......................................................................................... 38

Table 6: Gender Biases without Impact to Experience at Dealership .......................................... 40

Table 7: Segment 2 Likert-Scale Data .......................................................................................... 41

Table 8: Segment 3 Likert-Scale Data .......................................................................................... 44

vii
 INTRODUCTION

In this introduction, I provide an overview of gender biases in the automotive industry

and the steps that led me to pursue this research topic. Factors in this decision were both my

personal background and the industry background, both detailed below. Lastly, this introduction

outlines a roadmap for the remainder of my thesis.

Personal Background

My initial idea behind this research sparked from instances of gender discrimination I

witnessed and experienced at an automobile dealership as an intern. My experience was

inconvenient because the manager placed me in traditionally female positions—not my indicated

areas of interest. However, my experience was also inspiring because it demonstrated that if I

wanted to pursue a career in this industry, something was going to have to change.

Resultantly, I endeavored to compose a thesis to investigate gender biases in the

automotive industry. I hope to own and operate an automotive business as a minority, and

exploring this research would grant me self-awareness of existing biases and allow me to

mitigate discrimination. I hope to pave the way towards a greater female future in the automotive

industry.

Industry Background

The role of a female in the automotive industry, as in other male-dominated industries, is

a long-standing controversy. Her role is not controversial because she is incompetent in the field,

but because of decades of biases and stereotyping (Ayres, 1991; Leonard, 2016). Moreover, the

1
automotive industry has historically deprived females of buyer discounts and vehicle information

(Ayres, 1991; Lezotte, 2015). For those employed in the industry, similar discrepancies hold

true. As of 2018, females filled only 8% of executive roles in the top 20 automotive companies,

with over 50% of these companies lacking any female executive (Catalyst, 2018). The

association of the industry with masculinity has bred a culture of “anti-girl” behavior and

patronization for those employed in the industry (Bullock, 2019; Howard, 2018). Advertisements

also showcase males as the preferred image of the industry (Sandhu, 2019). Hence, the literature

indicates a clear bias towards males in the automotive industry.

Some females have broken through gendered stereotyping, such as Kitty Van Bortel—

New York automobile dealer and 2016 TIME Dealer of the Year (National Automobile Dealers

Association, 2016). Van Bortel was not valued for her automotive knowledge and achievements

until she owned and operated her own dealerships (M. C. Van Bortel, personal communication,

October 12, 2020). Her roadblocks along the way, in fact, propelled her towards success (see

Appendix A). However, no evidence proves whether this positive response, or any response, to

gender biases is common among all employees.

Research pertaining to the effect of gender biases on females in the automotive industry

is limited. Studies have failed to capture the experiences of dealership employees and rather

focus on the entirety of the industry. Further, the dealership segment is important to the study of

gender biases because dealerships are the preferred entity retailing vehicles to customers,

meaning gender discrepancies are most visible here (Kopestinsky, 2021).

One can think of the issue cyclically: gender biases exist in the industry and feed into

dealerships. Dealerships are the forefront of the industry to customers, who then perceive the

industry as gender-biased. This perception solidifies the discriminatory reputation of the

2
industry. Furthermore, prior research indicates that female employees are discouraged from

working at organizations that practice stereotyping. (Brown & Diekman, 2013). Gender

discrepancies are, thus, sustained. Despite these insights, existing research fails to prove how

exactly gender biases affect female employees in automobile dealerships. If industry biases do

not feed into dealerships, what perpetuates the industry’s biased reputation? If industry biases do

feed into dealerships, what can be done to mitigate these biases? To answer these questions, one

must ask the underlying question:

How do gender biases in the automotive industry affect the experiences of females employed at

dealerships?

Roadmap of Thesis

In order to answer the above question—and fill the gap in automotive research—I

collected data from over 100 females employed at automobile dealerships inquiring of their

experiences with gender biases in dealerships. As such, I intended this research to provide a

more comprehensive understanding of how gender discrimination pervades the industry and how

dealerships feed into the cycle.

This thesis begins with a review of the literature, delving into areas of patronization,

perception, performance, promotion, and pay. Then, the review shifts to analyzing the factors

that may influence progress in the industry. As one may note, no current research investigates

gender discrimination specific to female employees.

Following the literature review, this thesis outlines the data methodology. The

methodology conveys the steps I took to find eligible participants and collect data. In the form of

a survey with open-ended and Likert-scale questions, this method allows for multiple forms of

data analyses.

3
 Lastly, I share the research findings of my thesis, with the discussion to follow. Here, I

concluded that female employees are adamant in their opinions pertaining to gender biases in the

industry. This finding is evident in both open-ended responses and Likert-scale responses.

However, female employees are opinionated on both sides of the spectrum. 56.44% of

participants definitively argue that gender affects their experiences, and they share experiences

of gender biases persisting. Alternatively, 26.73% indicate that gender does not affect their

experiences, and these individuals have not witnessed or faced any gender biases. These findings

suggest that gender discrimination is prevalent for a large sector of female employees in

dealerships, but they do not explain why the discrimination is severe for some and non-existent

for others. I recommend further research to determine the reasoning for these discrepancies in

experience.

4
 LITERATURE REVIEW

To better understand the experiences of female employees in automobile dealerships, one

must assess the gender biases in the industry. The existing literature is scarce yet convincing in

showing the persistence of disparate treatment of women in retail automobile dealerships (Ayres,

1991; Bullock 2019). However, as revealed below, the effect of such biases on female

employees’ experiences in dealerships has yet to be discovered. In this section, I categorically

analyze the existing literature in terms of (1) trends of patronization over time, (2) perceptions of

females, (3) female employee performance, (4) promotional and pay differences on the basis of

gender, and (5) roadblocks and accelerators to progress.

Trends of Patronization in the Industry over Time

By analyzing past trends, one can better comprehend if and how patronization has

polluted the industry over time. A 1991 study of 180 retail car negotiations assesses customer

experience within 90 Chicago dealerships. Ayres (1991) observed that the dealerships extended

considerably lower prices (on the same vehicles) to white males than to blacks (100%-200%

more) and to females (40% more). The subjects found that their given price-points were not the

only matter of discrimination at the dealerships; subjects were also sent to salespersons of the

same race and gender, prompted with different questions, and informed about different features

of the cars. Ayres controlled for non-race/gender factors by ensuring that testers were within a

narrow range of age, education, economic class, clothing style, addresses given, and

attractiveness. In one final conversation, a dealer told Ayres that he profits on both “sucker” and

5
“non-sucker” sales. However, Ayres concluded that “no single causal theory may be adequate to

explain discrimination against both blacks and women” (Ayres, 1991, p. 852). The past

perceptions of females—as exemplified in the “sucker” versus “non-sucker” dealership

customers—inevitably impact current perceptions of females.

Later studies also document patronization but in terms of industry perception. Tranter and

Martin (2013) explored the masculinity associated with the automotive industry in the context of

the 2002 British Broadcasting Corporation show Top Gear. With few women present in the show

or in the audience, Top Gear prolonged the “combustion masculinity” associated with the

automotive industry. However, the show also attempted to make light of the patronization by

viewing cars and drivers through a humorous lens. Following their analyses, Tranter and Martin

addressed the changing culture of the automotive industry: car aesthetics and features have

shifted from power and speed to affordability and safety. Though a changing dynamic of

automobile features is evident, the history of masculinity in the industry also holds true and

continues to fuel patronization in the industry.

Moreover, one study seeks to view patronization in the industry as less of an “if” question

and more of a “who” question. Darley, Luethge, and Thatte (2008) explored this question as it

relates to employee experience with customers. The researchers conducted logistic analyses and

concluded that gender determined relationships between salespersons and customers at

automobile dealerships—that is, gender controlled salespersons perception and customer

satisfaction. Particularly, older men and men who viewed automotive salespersons positively

were the most likely to patronize dealerships. In addition, women most likely to patronize

dealerships’ service departments were those who: viewed automotive salespersons positively,

were pleased with sales processes at dealerships, were older, and were wealthier. Outlining the

6
importance of salespeople attributes for customers in purchasing cars, the researchers relayed the

effect of gender as a predictor of customer satisfaction and thus, profitability. This study, as

comparable to Ayres’s (1991) study, emphasizes the patronization in automobile dealerships but

magnifies the customers, not the dealerships, as culprits. Whether the identification of those most

likely to patronize the dealership indicates progress or not remains uncertain, but later studies

continue to support the issue of patronization in the industry.

Patronization has taken many forms over time. Analyzing the perspective of female

clients in automobile dealerships, Lezotte (2015) found that females were both patronized in

dealerships and subject to higher car payments than male customers. This finding is parallel to

that of Ayres (1991)—though nearly 24 years later. Thus, measurable patronization and

discrimination have pervaded the automotive industry for decades.

Though other industries have increasingly empowered females in recent years

(O’Connor, 2016), the automotive industry has not embraced women in such a way (Howard,

2018). Howard (2018) reviewed the book “Women at the Wheel” and provided a synopsis,

which includes an overview of women in the automotive industry from history to the present.

“Women at the Wheel” agitates the shared opinion of discrimination in the automotive industry:

women have been and are devalued in dealerships. The author argues that the patriarchy on

which the automotive industry was founded is unyielding. While this book-review is not peer-

reviewed, the opinions of the author, reviewer, and general public, nevertheless, point to the need

for further research.

Therefore, past and current literature iterate trends of patronization in the automotive

industry over time. While automobile features have adapted to support the female customer

(Tranter & Martin, 2013), dealerships have not. Instances of price discrimination for customers

7
(Ayres, 1991; Lezotte, 2015) also reveal this patronization. Associations of the industry with

terms like “masculinity” and “patriarchy” (Howard, 2018; Tranter & Martin, 2013) solidify the

industry’s reputation, too. Hence, existing literature shows that patronization in the industry

historically and actively drives gender biases in automobile dealerships.

Perceptions of Females in the Industry

In addition to trends of patronization, the perception of females is noteworthy as it

represents another gender discrepancy afflicting the automotive industry. Studying female

leaders in male-dominated industries from male perspectives, Esser, Kahrens, Mouzughi, and

Eomois (2018) reported multiple gender gaps. Males attributed behavior differences on

interpersonal levels as key for female advancement. That is, the male subjects felt that, in order

to thrive in male-dominated industries, females must exhibit specific behavioral qualities.

Further, they found females must exert more effort and possess greater expertise than males to

gain equal respect. This finding is critical, though its application is broader than the automotive

industry—the research targeted predominately male industries as a whole. However, other

studies see similar findings in the context of the automotive industry.

Leonard (2016) reported findings synonymous with those of Esser and colleagues (2018),

though concluded two years prior. Leonard conducted interviews exploring females in the

automotive industry and their experiences preparing for their careers. A majority of the

interviewees met interactions where they felt the need to prove their industry knowledge and

commitment, and they were offered help when none was needed. Moreover, the females were

viewed as less competent or knowledgeable, though many stated they were equally competent

and “do not like to feed into the stereotype of women being weaker or less competent in the

8
automotive field” (Leonard, 2016, p. 187). Hence, female employees in the industry sensed the

perception differences and attempted to dismantle stereotypes of incompetency.

Additional studies indicate perceptions of incompetence in the automotive industry.

Lezotte (2015) stressed the lack of competence with which female customers are associated in

automobile dealerships. “Women… are withheld crucial information due to an assumed lack of

basic car buying knowledge… and are ignored or dismissed when accompanied by a male

companion” (Lezotte, 2015, p. 691). The variation between Lezotte’s findings and Leonard’s

(2016) is that Lezotte studies females as automobile dealership customers, and Leonard studies

females as automotive employees. In both, females are viewed as incompetent. Included in

Lezotte’s work, though, are websites with useful knowledge to educate females on the

automotive industry. However, this solution to inform females assumes that a gap of knowledge

exists.

Therefore, a number of factors contribute to the gender biases persisting in the

automotive industry. The sample population is different for Leonard’s (2016) and Lezotte’s

(2015) studies (employees versus customers), and the results suggest varying knowledge gaps;

but, the consensus stands that the automotive industry has tendencies to perceive females with

less competence: both as customers and employees. Further, stereotypes define females as “poor,

nervous, incompetent drivers” (Howard, 2018, p. 801). Contemporary advertisements, driver’s

education content, television, and films sustain these stereotypes.

Other research expands the perception biases beyond human interactions by

demonstrating the lack of female representation in automotive advertisements. Sandhu (2019)

examined the prevalence of gendered automobile television commercials, yet in the context of

India. Sandhu studied advertisement orientation (86% male), gender of the voice-over (74%

9
male), gender of the product user (83% male), and gender of the main character (64% male).

Results showed a strong preference for males in Indian automotive television commercials.

However, other studies point to the varying gendered climate in the United States and India,

limiting the application of Sandhu’s advertisement studies to the United States (Dhar et al, 2018).

Nevertheless, the literature shows that perceptions of females in the automotive industry

affect gender biases in dealerships. Instances of assumed incompetence (Leonard, 2016; Lezotte,

2015), coupled with the need to work harder to achieve equally (Esser et al, 2018; Leonard,

2016), expose the existing perception differences. Moreover, the failure of the media to depict

the industry as gender-neutral has fueled biases in the United States and beyond (Howard, 2018;

Sandhu, 2019) to varying degrees (Dhar et al, 2018). Perceptions of females, therefore, impact

and perpetuate gender biases in the industry.

Female Employee Performance in the Industry

Workplace performance is another factor that gender biases degrade. Namely, Bullock

(2019) researched the work experiences of female leaders in American corporate automotive

companies. By utilizing the four identity frames of communication theory of identity, Bullock

analyzed self-concept, workplace relationships, and corporate automotive practices. She also

identified the “masculine leadership symbol” (Bullock, 2019, p. 201) that cars represented, along

with the hindrances to seeking advancement in male-dominated industries. On one account, a

female salesperson reported hearing often the “where’s your boss” greeting from customers at

the dealership. Her findings illuminated the contradiction of feelings and interactions females in

the industry faced. Importantly, gender influenced the females’ personal perceptions,

expectations, and performance. The preferred “anti-girl” behavior in the dealership was an

attribute many females felt they must develop. “Anti-girl” behavior, as Bullock’s subjects

10
described, is behavior that is less feminine, emotionless, and even bulletproof. This perception

also communicated the association of females with weakness and emotional instability. Bullock

(2019) described her findings: “Overall, women reveal their abilities to successfully navigate the

gendered, automotive industry workplace as a slow, upward progression. Women described the

need to communicate “toughness,” or portray behavior that felt unnatural to gain respect from

their male counterparts” (p. 210). Furthermore, females in the industry must conform to the

desired workplace behaviors which inherently deviate from female gender norms.

Comparable studies in male-dominated industries conclude the same: females are often

pressured to conform to masculine norms in order to “serve typical masculine behaviors” (Esser

et al, 2018, p. 151). Participants in the research agreed that: “Women must bring a certain

flexibility with regard to changing circumstances and varying internal political trends, which in a

male-dominated leadership environment are likely to be led by male colleagues” (Esser et al,

2018, p. 151). However, participants also noted that authenticity is also a needed characteristic to

thrive in predominately-male industries—conflicting with the desire for conformity. Within the

literature, male industry leaders showed a preference for maintaining authenticity yet exhibiting

masculine behavior.

A study comparing automotive sales factors in the Czech Republic and the United States

yielded similar results. By studying personal interaction during the sales process (specifically

automotive retail sales) and evaluating effectiveness, results conveyed that authenticity and

personality factors were vital to success in both countries. Authenticity proved to be more

important in the Czech Republic, whereas confidence and persuasion were more important in the

United States. Nonetheless, authenticity remained a desired attribute of both males and females

11
in the automotive industry (Říha et al, 2017). The conflict of this attribute with innate female

behavior immensely drives gender biases toward female performance.

Supplementing Esser and colleagues (2018), Mayer and van Zyl (2013) studied female

leaders in a male-dominated industry and found other attributes that drive successful workplace

performance for females. In their study of 15 female leaders in the engineering industry, results

implied that developing coping skills, high levels of coherence, and well-being positively

influenced both job performance and personal satisfaction; alternatively, lack of such skills

negatively influenced job performance and personal satisfaction. One must acknowledge,

though, the datedness and small sample size of Mayer and van Zyl’s research. Although these

limitations exist, the results complement the later work of Esser and colleagues as the desire for

flexibility and coping skills are closely associated.

Therefore, the literature reveals that factors affecting job performance, too, motivate

gender biases in the automotive industry. Contradictory desirable behaviors for females in male-

dominated industries are a roadblock to successful job performance in the industry (Esser et al,

2018). Although masculine behavior is preferred (Bullock, 2019; Esser et al, 2018), authenticity

(Říha et al, 2017), flexibility (Esser et al, 2018), and coping skills (Mayer & van Zyl, 2013) are

also desired attributes of females in automotive careers. Further, the conflict for a female to act

and sound masculine while remaining authentic conveys the innate discrimination in the industry

(Bullock, 2019).

Promotional and Pay Differences on the Basis of Gender in the Industry

In addition to patronization, perception differences, and performance biases, gender

discrimination in the automotive industry also exists in the form of promotions and pay. For

12
example, the makeup of the automotive industry reveals concrete evidence of gender

discrepancies.

Catalyst (2018, 2019, 2020) reported the following statistics regarding the makeup of the

industry:

• Globally, only 16 females (8%) held executive roles in the top 20 automotive companies.
(2018)
• Globally, more than half of the top 20 automotive companies have no females in
executive roles. (2018)
• Nationally, females make up 17.9% of automobile dealers. (2019)
• Nationally, while females are the majority (74.8%) of office and clerical workers in the
automotive industry, females only represent 18.1% of senior-level positions and
managers. (2018)

These statistics represent the existing inequalities for females in the automotive industry. They

serve as quantitative evidence but fail to explain why the industry sustains such disparities.

However, one study seeks an explanation for gender disparities according to various

groups. In a study of glass-ceiling perceptions in the accounting profession, researchers found

correlations between various groups and how they attempted to explain the discrimination.

Firstly, the four found insufficient support from males in the accounting profession, indicating

antiquated social norms in that industry. Findings also included that single women were more

likely to believe they were treated unequally and disenfranchised than are married women.

Lower-ranked female accounting professionals were more likely to report the existence of a glass

ceiling than were higher-ranked accounting professionals. One may wonder how these groups

may perceive the wage gap when applied to the automotive industry. An additional finding of the

study is that the continued discrepancies in reward influenced the talent pool for the industry.

The authors also found biases against promoting females to high-level positions, inadequate

mentoring for females, lack of networking opportunities for females, and failure to assign

13
females to high-profile jobs (Cohen et al, 2020). Though such biases reported in the study pertain

to the accounting field, Sandhu (2019) finds greater gendered preferences in the automotive field

than in non-automotive fields. Sandhu’s concentration in India, once again, limits her work.

Still, reports in the United States disclose the alike. Only 38% of females employed in the

automotive industry reported “fair” treatment (O’Connor, 2016). In comparison, female-

dominated industries reported much higher satisfaction, with 75% of public relations employees

reporting fair treatment. The work of Cohen and colleagues (2020) was specific to a male-

dominated field; however, one could argue that their findings are distantly applicable to the

automotive industry, as O’Connor reported the aerospace and automotive industries to be among

the lowest-ranked industries for gender equality. Thus, if O’Connor’s findings hold true, the

biases in the automotive industry would be even worse than those of the accounting industry.

Limitations of this connection lie in the fact that O’Connor’s reports were four years ago and not

peer-reviewed. However, the main points stand in that female employees in male-dominated

industries (such as the automotive industry) face unequal treatment and representation, especially

when compared to those in female-dominated industries.

This unequal treatment also holds true in the realm of promotions. Examining pay and

promotional differences among males and females, Artz, Goodall, and Oswald (2018) attempted

to answer the question “do women ask?” By matching employer and employee data to study

asking behavior, the researchers concluded that males and females asked for promotions and pay

raises just as frequently. The difference, though, lied in the willingness of (or lack thereof)

employers to grant promotions and pay raises to females. Challenging prior studies that

suggested men often “outnegotiate” women, this study recognized no statistically significant

variation among males and females in the probability of asking for promotions and raises.

14
However, this study did not conclude that males and females perform identically in the

workplace. The authors did conclude, in fact, that gender differences exist in the likelihood that

an employee will be successful in receiving a promotion or pay raise.

Based on the above studies, promotional and pay discrimination on the basis of gender

permeate the automotive industry. Not only are females absent from leadership positions in the

industry (Catalyst, 2018, 2019, 2020), male-dominated organizations withhold proper

compensation from females, though they ask for promotion and pay raises equally often (Artz et

al, 2018). In addition, the automotive industry is reportedly among the worst in terms of gender

stereotyping (O’Connor, 2016; Sandhu, 2019), which enables researchers to assess the

automotive industry alongside other male-dominated fields. Promotional and pay differences, in

these ways, are contributing factors of gender biases within the automotive industry.

Roadblocks and Accelerators to Progress

Roadblocks to Progress

Considering the extensive factors fueling gender biases in the automotive industry,

progress is needed, yet a number of roadblocks exist hindering this progress. First, based on a

2019 study, even when organizations achieved increasing female leadership presence, the

organization did not necessarily achieve progress. Merely holding a position was not an

indication of success. For example, when a female held a stereotypically female position, such as

secretary, cashier, or even Chief Human Resources Officer, female job seekers were less

attracted to that organization because the job-positioning implied that the organization

stereotyped by gender (Iseke & Pull, 2019). The researchers wrote: “A female executive holding

a stereotypical female office may even increase women’s underrepresentation in management in

the long run as it may discourage highly qualified female graduates from applying” (Iseke &

15
Pull, 2019, p. 1124). Alternatively, when a female held a non-stereotypical position, such as

CFO, the organization attracted female job seekers more because the organization seemed to be

more just. Thus, obtaining stereotypically female positions may undermine female progression as

it discourages other female applicants.

Despite the fact that a female in a non-stereotypical position may attract more female job

seekers, other studies indicated the downfall of visible female successes. In a political setting,

Brown and Diekman (2013) ironically found that greater numbers of female political candidates

actually led to the greater legitimization of the gender hierarchy. The authors proved that

increasing female leadership presence created a general belief that the sociopolitical system was

more just, which led to a preference for stability rather than action. Going forward, the authors

recommended that those who desire social justice must, following early successes, beware of the

complacency that results. One must consider the datedness of this finding and its specific focus

in politics.

Another study warned of other consequences of females rising to success but in the field

of science and technology. When successful women ascribed their successes to merit, they

undermined the discrimination that existed and further legitimized the status quo. This

perception solidified the glass ceiling (Cech & Blair-Loy, 2010). In the researchers’ own words:

When social actors use meritocratic explanations to account for the unusual achievement

of individuals in a generally disadvantaged group, unequal outcomes are justified. When

the token successful individuals themselves share in this interpretation, the legitimation

of the status quo is even more powerful. (Cech & Blair-Loy, 2010, p. 393)

This study shows one way male-dominated industries further solidify the glass ceiling and

implications for showcasing successful females in former years. Thus, females holding

16
stereotypical positions, those in visible leadership positions, and those who fail to acknowledge

discrimination are all roadblocks to progress (Brown & Diekman, 2013; Cech & Blair-Loy,

2010; Iseke & Pull, 2019). One must beware of such barriers when referring to female successes

in the automotive industry, just as in any other industry.

Accelerators to Progress

Accelerators to progress in the industry include reversing negative perceptions that exist.

To be perceived with equal competence, females must showcase equal competence, if not greater

than that of males (Leonard, 2016). Lezotte (2015) recommended a number of websites that can

educate females on the automotive industry, negotiation techniques, and behaviors needed to

combat the male-dominant culture. Exposure to these issues and sharpening one’s knowledge is

crucial.

In addition, Leonard’s (2016) study reported that positive influences helped females

overcome differences in their automotive education and careers. Specifically, support from male

family members was vital in their decisions to enter the field. One must garner support from a

positive mentor and act as a positive mentor to help accelerate progress in the automotive

industry.

Despite existing roadblocks, accelerators are promising. To accelerate progress in the

automotive industry is to be an informed female (Lezotte, 2015) and to foster support for females

in the industry (Leonard, 2016). Driving progress in the industry is important in order to

minimize the aforementioned gender biases that plague the automotive industry.

Conclusion

Based on the existing literature, gender biases in the automotive industry exist in the

forms of patronization (Ayres, 1991; Howard, 2018), perception (Leonard, 2016), performance

17
(Bullock, 2019), and promotion and pay (Catalyst, 2018, 2019, 2020). Notwithstanding such

discrimination, progress is within reach (Lezotte, 2015). Awareness of how publicized progress

may inhibit further progress, though, is critical because complacency is a likely result (Brown &

Diekman, 2013).

Thus, the literature reveals overarching gender discrimination in the automotive industry

and other male-dominated industries. Exploring how the discrimination impacts the experiences

of female employees in retail car dealerships, however, is untouched. The research of Darley and

colleagues (2008) attempts to answer “who” patronizes dealership employees but fails to answer

“how.” In addition, Bullock (2019) concludes relevant findings for females in the industry yet in

the context of a corporate setting—rather than in a dealership. By excluding the dealership

employee demographic, one cannot understand the full effects of gendered treatment in the

automotive industry. If dealerships are the face of the automotive industry (Rajan et al, 2017),

the treatment and experiences of dealership employees are likely relevant in the portrayal of the

industry as a whole. Therefore, the existing literature provides evidence for gender biases in the

automotive industry; yet, my research is needed in order to (1) expose the breadth of the issue as

it pertains to the experiences of female employees in automobile dealerships and to (2) drive

progress towards a greater female future in the automotive industry.

18
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this section, I outline the research methodology I used to test the following research

question: how do gender biases in the automotive industry affect the experiences of female

employees in dealerships? By addressing my research question using both open-ended questions

and detailed Likert-scale questions, I intended to gain an unfiltered understanding of female

employees’ experiences in dealerships and the underlying factors. The UNC Institutional Review

Board (IRB) approved my methodology as it currently stands on February 18, 2020 (see

Appendix B); I also included a consent form for participants to view prior to their completion of

the survey (see Appendix C). In this research methodology, I detail (1) the selection of my

survey participants, (2) the design of my survey questions, (3) the methods to evaluate my survey

results, and (4) the limitations of my methodology.

Selection of Survey Participants

My survey participants included female leaders in US automobile dealerships. I used the

following criteria to select participants:

• Participant is at least eighteen years old.

• Participant identifies as a female.

• Participant has been employed at an automobile dealership for at least 2 years.

• Participant’s position at the automobile dealership is/was in management, sales,

marketing, finance, accounting, or operations.

19
 In order to collect data from this demographic and represent a significant sample of the

population, I used a combined approach. First, I used the expert method (Bhattacherjee, 2012), in

which I selected participants specifically because of their past or current employment at an

automobile dealership. The selection group and criteria, hence, were non-random, but the

individual participants were.

To supplement my expert method approach, I also used the snowball sampling approach

(Bhattacherjee, 2012). This approach enabled me to distribute my survey by garnering the help

of key individuals in the automotive industry. These men and women then distributed my survey

to their own networks, as such networks were more encompassing than my own. The snowball

approach also allowed me to reach participants with whom I am unfamiliar (Patton, 2014).

To distribute my survey, I contacted automobile dealer associations in every state. I also

posted my survey in multiple Facebook groups targeted at females in the industry. In addition, I

sent my survey link to females on LinkedIn who were currently or formerly employed at

automobile dealerships in the roles I previously listed. The individuals who agreed over LinkedIn

often asked or agreed to send the link to other females in their automotive networks, thus

implementing my snowball sampling approach.

After utilizing the expert and snowball method to distribute my survey through a variety

of networks, I collected data from 101 participants. This quantity aligns with other qualitative

studies of this type such as the work of Appelbaum and colleagues (2011) and of Sabin and

Greenwald (2012).

Design of Survey Questions

My survey questions were intended to reflect the experiences of female employees in

automobile dealerships. Specifically, I sought individual interpretations of gender biases in

20
dealerships and factors affecting an individual’s experiences while employed at a dealership.

Participants responded in the form of open-ended questions and Likert-scale statements. By

combining survey techniques, I was able to gain a more thorough understanding of the biases

existing in dealerships.

Open-Ended Questions

The open-ended questions enabled participants to share opinions and experiences in their

own words; this technique authenticated the responses of the survey. Though the answers were

limited to the researcher’s interpretation, qualitative research depends on interpretation (Willig,

2017).

My open-ended questions had similar intent to other studies surrounding gender biases,

specifically inquiring of gender minorities and the effect of gender in business (Gerlach, 2020;

Staker, 2020). The open-ended questions read:

1. Has your gender impacted your workplace experiences at your dealership? If so,

how?

2. Approximately what percentage of individuals in your position at your dealership

are female? Does this have any bearing on your experiences?

3. Please share any examples of gender biases you have witnessed or faced at your

dealership.

Likert-Scale Statements

The Likert-scale statements allowed participants to select an answer that most nearly

communicated their experiences; this technique streamlined research analyses but weakened the

precision of answers.

21
 The twelve Likert-scale statements determined the extent to which instances of biases in

dealerships affected each participant’s experience in the workplace. The statements I chose were

inspired by other studies of gender biases in the workplace (Bullock, 2019; Foley et al, 2015;

Williamson, 2014). Answer choices included five options: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3)

neutral/unsure, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. The Likert-scale statements read:

1. I face gendered discrimination at my workplace.

2. I must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be equally respected

in my position.

3. I am withheld reward (pay, promotion, other forms of compensation) because of

my gender.

4. I am perceived with less competence because of my gender.

5. My employer understands the conflict between employment and motherhood (if

applicable).

6. I would feel more comfortable and confident with more female leaders at my

dealership.

7. I have been discouraged from working in an automotive dealership.

8. Female customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position when

seeking services at my dealership.

9. Male customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position when seeking

services at my dealership.

10. I am excluded from (or uncomfortable in) social gatherings organized in my

dealership.

11. I am given fewer opportunities than males in my position to showcase my skills.

22
 12. I feel psychologically safe* in my team or workplace environment at my

dealership.

*Psychological safety is defined by Harvard Scientist Amy Edmonson (1999) as “a shared belief

held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (p. 350). This

definition includes the notion that one’s “unique skills and talents are valued and utilized”

(Edmondson, 1999, p. 350).

Methods to Evaluate Survey Results

My dual methods served different yet important purposes in drawing conclusions from

my research data (Forcino et al, 2017). From my open-ended questions, I was able to incorporate

specific instances and common threads of discrimination into my research analyses. These

responses allowed me to segment participants into three distinct groups. I, then, evaluated each

segment by their Likert-scale responses and was able to better compare the extent to which

gender biases affected female employees’ experiences in automobile dealerships. For both

techniques I employed, I evaluated the results according to each segment and each type of

question: open-ended and Likert-scale.

The open-ended questions, raw and unfiltered, served to signify each participant’s

viewpoint as it pertained to workplace perception and discrimination. To assess and compare

common threads in responses, I noted keywords as they appeared in responses. I organized

responses into buckets of commonalities in order to identify any parallels in response; this

method is comparable to that of Pullman, McGuire, and Cleveland (2005). These trends allowed

me to use segmentation to group my participants. Lastly, I noted trends within each segment in

my open-ended question analysis.

23
 To ascribe meaning to the Likert-scale questions, I computed the mode (1-5) response for

each question, as well as the median (1-5) for the overall results and by segment. Because these

measures are nonparametric, they are appropriate for a Likert scale and descriptive statistics

studies (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Such values represented broader generalizations of gendered

experiences in dealerships, rather than individual accounts. Lastly, I produced histograms for the

Likert-scale statements that produced skewed results.

Limitations of My Methodology

My study was subject to limitations such as biases: First, my data is self-reported. While I

made efforts to control for errors and biases, I was still bound by the time constraints of the

study, particularly because of LinkedIn restrictions. One limitation related to biases is human

error. Response biases could have occurred at the survey level, as the questions were subject to

participants’ interpretation of the phrasing. Analytical biases could have occurred at the

interpretation level, as the participants’ open-ended responses were also subject to my

interpretation of their phrasing (Forcino et al, 2017).

In addition, though employed (currently or formerly) at automobile dealerships,

participants were not subject matter experts on gender studies. I, also, am not an expert in this

area. Therefore, additional explanations for the existence of workplace bias may exist beyond

what participants described and I observed.

Limitations of my methodology also lied in my participant selection. I first drew

participants from members of only three automobile dealer associations (Connecticut

Automotive Retailers Association, Iowa Automobile Dealers Association, and South Carolina

Automobile Dealers Association), due to lack of response or willingness to assist from other

associations. My uses of Facebook and LinkedIn, however, were not restricted to specific

24
geographical demographics. Moreover, based on the timing of completed survey responses, I

predict a strong majority of responses were from participants obtained through Facebook and

LinkedIn, meaning the geographic limitation may be slight. Still, the individuals I contacted via

LinkedIn, though over 1800 in total, were primarily those employed by one of the top 150

automobile dealerships in the United States, as Charniga (2019) reported, or those employed by

one of “America’s best car dealers” as Newsweek (2019) reported in a study through Statista.

Employees from smaller and unranked dealerships and were excluded from the study because of

this decision. This decision, nevertheless, was necessary in order to contact participants most

efficiently.

25
 RESEARCH FINDINGS

In this section, I describe the results of my study. First, I provide insights into the overall

results I obtained from my research and explain my choice to use segmentation to break down

my survey results. Then, I explain the results for each segment, including the open-ended

responses and Likert-scale responses and compare the findings for each segment. Finally, I draw

conclusions from my research findings.

Overall Results and Technique for Analysis

The overall results of my survey, which attempted to measure the effect of gender biases

in the workplace, surprised me. From a broad perspective, the results appear irresolute because

the neutral medians do not align with the individual responses, which are highly skewed. Indeed,

most of the time, participants either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed to most questions—but

they did not strongly agree or strongly disagree to the SAME questions. As a result, the “strongly

agree” responses pulled the “strongly disagree” responses to the middle. In the following

sections, I delve into the industry demographics and the overall results of the survey. Then, I

explain how I segmented the responses into three polarized response groups, which gave me a

method of working with the data in a more meaningful way.

Industry Demographics

Because I targeted my survey to female dealership employees, assessing statistics within

this demographic is relevant to my findings. Females make up just under 25% of automobile

dealership employees and just under 20% of automobile dealers. The average male salary is

26
$58,589, and the average female salary is $40,346. The average employee age is 41.7 (Data

USA, 2020). These data points provide context for the research I collected in my study.

Open-Ended Responses

The three open-ended questions were intended to represent participants’ experiences in

their own words. Though responses were subject to interpretation, participants disclosed their

experiences clearly. The skewed responses for question 3, as well as question 1, showed that, in

this sample, female employees reported quite different experiences with gender biases.

The first of the three open-ended questions is relevant because it shows how gender

impacts female employee experience for each participant. For question 1, (“Has your gender

impacted your workplace experiences at your dealership? If so, how?”) 58.42% of participants

answered “Yes” or the alike (“Definitely,” “Absolutely,”, etc.). Alternatively, 36.63% of

participants answered “No” or the alike (“Not really,” “Not that I can think of,” etc.). The

remaining 4.95% of participants had mixed or uncertain answers. On both sides of the spectrum,

participants emphasized key points in their answers using capitalization and punctuation such as

exclamation marks.

Question 2 responses are less meaningful than those of question 1 because of its poor

wording, which caused participants to misinterpret and respond inconsistently. Question 2,

(“Approximately what percentage of individuals in your position at your dealership are female?

Does this have any bearing on your experiences?”), thus, has less application than the other two

open-ended questions. For example, some participants answered 0%, which should not be

possible since the participant would be included in this demographic. Other responses indicated

that the participant is the only one in their role, which likely skewed results. Some stated the

number of females without stating the total employees in their position or followed their

27
response with “I think”. With so many variant answers, this question is difficult to use in

analysis, so I did not include data from this question beyond this section. Overall, 47.04% of

individuals in participants’ positions at their dealerships were female, and 27.38% of participants

answered that this quantity has a bearing on their experiences. As stated, the poor quality of this

question diminishes its use in analyses.

Question 3 yields important results in displaying specific gender biases participants

experienced. Question 3 asked, “Please share any examples of gender biases you have witnessed

or faced at your dealership.” Of these responses, 65.35% expanded upon what they witnessed or

faced, and 34.65% relayed that no biases exist or left the question blank. Multiple answers

argued that too many instances exist to describe them all while others argued that no gender

biases exist at all.

Based on the open-ended responses, female employees in this sample were passionate

about the impact and existence of gender biases (one way or another); yet, depicting these

answers is difficult to show when reporting Likert-scale results.

Likert-Scale Responses

The Likert-scale results showed a skewed distribution of responses for a majority of

statements (see Appendix D for histograms of skewed data). Therefore, showing median results

alone would not represent the skewed nature of the results. In addition, because individual

responses were skewed, overall (non-segmented) responses were neutralized, which limits the

applicability of the results. I describe various Likert-scale responses below, and the data follows

in Table 1.

As stated earlier, the medians and modes seem to indicate clear results; however, the

response breakdown is more conflicting. Statement 2, for example, had a median of 4 and a

28
mode of 5, which would indicate that participants agreed or strongly agreed that they must

possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be equally respected in their positions.

While 55.29% of participants fell into the strongly agree or agree category (32.94% and 22.35%,

respectively), 43.53% of participants fell into the strongly disagree or disagree category (31.76%

and 11.76%, respectively). Female employees in this sample were divided on whether or not they

must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be equally respected in their

positions.

Similarly, the results produced overall in statement 5 are not representative of individual

answers. In statement 5, “My employer understands the conflict between employment and

motherhood (if applicable),” the median response was “neutral or unsure,” though only 7 of 68

responses answered this way. Over 70% of responses to this statement were 1 or 5, conveying

participants’ strong opinions on this topic. Participants in this sample either strongly agreed or

strongly disagreed regarding their employers’ understanding of the conflicts that mothers can

experience in relation to their employment.

Statement 6 results are also neutral due to skewed answers. Statement 6, “I would feel

more comfortable and confident with more female leaders at my dealership,” like statement 5,

had a median response of 3 with fewer than 10% of participants selecting 3. Although 46.48% of

participants strongly disagreed or disagreed (33.80% and 12.68%, respectively) that they would

feel more comfortable and confident with more female leaders at their dealership, 45.07% of

participants strongly agreed or agreed (26.76% and 18.31%, respectively). These nearly equal

percentage points convey how differently women in this sample experienced the need for more

female employees in their dealerships.

29
 While Likert-scale responses were skewed in most of the answers, statement 3 results

convey some agreement. In statement 3, almost 65% of participants indicated they strongly

disagreed with statement 3 in regards to whether rewards are withheld based on gender bias.

Likewise, the results from statement 7 display some level of agreement among

participants. Over two-thirds of participants strongly disagreed that they have been discouraged

from working in automobile dealerships. This finding raises a question as to why so few women

are employed at automobile dealerships.

Finally, the majority of participants agrees on the last three statements. Participants

strongly relayed that they are not excluded from social gatherings organized in their dealerships

(statement 10), given fewer opportunities than males to showcase their skills (statement 11).

Furthermore, the majority indicated that they feel psychologically safe at their dealerships

(statement 12). A majority, however, still fails to encompass the full scope of responses. Data

revealing non-segmented responses on the Likert scale are below in Table 1, and histograms

revealing skewed data are in Appendix D.

Table 1

Overall (Non-Segmented) Likert-Scale Data

Statement N Median Mode

1. I face gendered discrimination at my workplace. 87 2 1

2. I must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be 85 4 5

equally respected in my position.

3. I am withheld reward (pay, promotion, other forms of compensation) 85 1 1

because of my gender.

4. I am perceived with less competence because of my gender. 84 2 1

30
 5. My employer understands the conflict between employment and 68 3 5

motherhood (if applicable).

6. I would feel more comfortable and confident with more female 71 3 1

leaders at my dealership.

7. I have been discouraged from working in an automotive dealership. 85 1 1

8. Female customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 78 4 5

when seeking services at my dealership.

9. Male customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 67 2 1

when seeking services at my dealership.

10. I am excluded from (or uncomfortable in) social gatherings 87 1 1

organized in my dealership.

11. I am given fewer opportunities than males in my position to 84 1 1

showcase my skills.

12. I feel psychologically safe* in my team or workplace environment 81 5 5

at my dealership.

Segmentation of Polarized Results

Based on the polarized findings from the open-ended questions, I segmented the

participants into three groups. Segment 1, “Gender bias conscious” (56.44% of participants),

were grouped based on their response that gender impacts their experiences at the dealership

(question 1) and acknowledgment of gender biases in their workplace (question 3). Segment 2,

“Gender bias unaffected” (16.83% of participants), answered questions 1 and 3 inconsistently

and were grouped based on this commonality. Segment 3, “Gender bias skeptic” (26.73% of

31
participants) were grouped based on their response that gender does not impact their experiences

at the dealership (question 1) and do not perceive gender biases in their workplace (question 3).

Nonetheless, a strong majority (83.17%) of participants were adamant in their open-

ended responses (Segments 1 and 3), and their Likert-scale responses align. By breaking down

the responses by segment, researchers can compare the Likert-scale responses in each segment.

Segment 1: Gender Bias Conscious Participants

Open-Ended Responses

Participants who fell under Segment 1 (57 in total) agreed that gender has impacted their

workplace experiences at their dealership. Participants indicated that both customers and co-

workers treat female employees differently and often negatively. Mistaking a manager for a

receptionist, excluding them from social outings, and providing fewer opportunities were among

the experiences that Segment 1 participants described in question 1.

Question 3 responses proved to be extremely similar to those of question 1. Segment 1

felt strongly regarding gender biases they faced, as question 3 portrayed. Some participants

chose to answer with “Too many to type”, and some participants (likely within Segment 1)

personally messaged me with instances after completing the survey.

While many participants shared unique examples of their gender’s impact in their

workplace and instances of gender biases, many examples were repeated in multiple participants’

responses to questions 1 and 3. From these responses, I recognized themes within Segment 1

participants’ experiences. Segment 1 participants (1) faced skepticism and discrimination from

male customers, (2) were overlooked and underestimated by co-workers and superiors, and (3)

tolerated social exclusion and sexualization.

32
 Participants in Segment 1 described encounters of judgment and doubt from dealership

customers, primarily males. The male customers often doubted female knowledge until proven

(19 responses) and were even unwilling to work with female employees, at times (11 responses).

Other participants described encounters where they were mistaken to be in a secretarial role

instead of a managerial position (4 responses). However, they also described that female

customers often prefer working with female employees (5 responses).

Table 2 displays quotes associated with participants facing skepticism and discrimination

from male customers, broken into three main categories (36 total responses).

Table 2

Female Employee Experiences with Customers

Customers doubt female Male customers unwilling to Female customers are

knowledge until proven work with female employees drawn to female
employees
“I had to prove myself in the “The most common thing “My female service
beginning over and over again would be an older man calling advisor and female sales
that I knew what I was talking in or emailing and insisting he associates often get asked
about. Even to the point of speak with a sales MAN, or my to work with by other
having men ask for another MANAGER (I was the females, makes them feel
man to speak with” manager)” comfortable”

“Male customers are skeptical “I have had customers refuse to “Women are much more
and constantly trying to “test” work with me to my face due to trusting, men think I am
my knowledge” me being a woman. I have also not knowledgeable”
had customers work with me
“Male customer not trusting and then call in and ask to
my vehicle knowledge. Being speak to anyone pretending we
treated as an object because I had never gone over anything
am a female” together”

“Customers are judgmental and

assume, since they do not have
automotive knowledge, I won’t
either because I’m a woman”

33
 In addition to coping with doubt from male customers, Segment 1 participants also shared

instances in which male employees and superiors overlooked and underestimated them.

Specifically, participants’ responses revealed that female automotive employees have to work

harder to have their voices heard and prove themselves (10 responses). They reported that males

also underestimate the ability and emotional stability of their female co-workers (10 responses).

Additionally, participants responded that female employees are held to different standards than

male co-workers (5 responses), including pay and promotional differences (12 responses). They

indicated that male co-workers and superiors, furthermore, often ignore female ideas or failed to

admit their own wrongdoings (14 responses).

Table 3 displays quotes associated with co-workers and superiors overlooking and

underestimating female employees, broken into three main categories (51 total responses).

Table 3

Female Employee Experiences with Male Employees

Females have to work harder Females are overlooked for Males fail to acknowledge
to have their voices heard and pay and promotional female ideas and admit their
prove themselves advancement own mistakes
“Being a woman in a male- “Even when more qualified “I am constantly sexualized,
dominated industry means I for a role, men usually get the and, while in a management
have to work that much job” position, am rarely relied
harder to have my voice upon for an opinion”
heard” “3 instances in which I found
out my male counterpart was “Females will suggest a
“I sometimes have to go the making a higher salary with solution to a problem that is
extra mile of exemplifying less experience” turned down; but, if a man
my knowledge in the comes up with the idea, it is
automotive industry” implemented”

“Women must be subservient,

can't tell a man he made a
mistake or that he needs to do
something”

34
 Participants also described automobile dealerships as socially exclusive and even

sexualized. Many conveyed the workplace as an “old boys club” atmosphere where they are left

out of conversations and social outings (11 responses). For some, name-calling and sexist jokes

persist as issues (5 responses). Some also reported that men often make inappropriate sexual

advances with female colleagues (5 responses). The social environment, as participants

described, pressures female employees to adapt to more masculine behaviors (8 responses).

Table 4 displays quotes associated with social exclusion and sexualization within

dealerships, broken into three categories (29 total responses).

Table 4

Social Exclusion and Sexualization within Dealerships

Female employees are left out Inappropriate advancements Female employees face social
of conversations and outings and comments are the reality pressures to adapt
for some female employees
“Male leadership excluding “From sexual harassment in “The automotive industry is a
us from dinners, outings, etc. my twenties to glass ceilings male-driven community. You
being passed over for males in my thirties to forties” have to adapt and be
who “gel” better with our tough/thick-skinned or get
dealers” “Men tend to make out”
inappropriate comments
“If you are in a dealership thinking it’s ok because we
where mostly men are in should have “tough skin””
charge, it tends to be a boys
club. Even with women
dominating the office staff,
they tend to put men in
positions like Controller or
VP of Accounting so they can
keep their boys club when
they have meetings in or
outings”

“Left out of discussions

because they are talking about
things the way a guy would
talk about it and not wanting

35
 to censor their conversation
for my presence”

Based on the open-ended responses from Segment 1, a large group of participants in this

study experienced gender biases in automotive dealerships and provided examples to describe

their experiences. Such biases manifested from experiences with customers and employees to the

overall workplace environment.

Likert-Scale Responses

Likert-scale responses within Segment 1 showed similar experiences to those described

in their open-ended responses. Below, I compare Segment 1 findings with non-segmented

findings and describe the data, as shown in Table 5.

For statement 1, overall results are opposite of Segment 1 results. Overall (non-

segmented) responses indicated that participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with statement

1. In comparison, Segment 1 responses suggested that females agreed or strongly agreed with

statement 1: they face gendered discrimination at their workplaces.

Differentiation of responses in Segment 1 from overall results was also evident in

statement 4. Like statement 1, overall results suggested that female dealership employees do not

believe they are perceived with less competence. Segment 1 participants, though, appeared to

believe the opposite.

Statements 5 and 6 were also more clear once responses were segmented, as overall

results conflict with Segment 1 results. In addition, Segment 1 responses to these statements

revealed the tendency of participants to respond with extreme answers. Forty percent of Segment

1 responses to statement 5 were “strongly disagree,” and approximately 37% of Segment 1

responses to statement 6 were “strongly agree.”

36
 Contrastingly, statement 3 responses were consistent with overall results. Participants

disagreed to the idea that female dealership employees are not withheld compensation because of

their gender, though some open-ended answers conveyed otherwise. The breakdown of

responses for this statement is not definitive, as participants who disagreed and strongly

disagreed are only a slight majority.

Statement 2 was also consistent with overall/non-segmented results. These responses

showed that this sample agreed they must possess greater subject-matter expertise to be equally

respected.

The idea that female customers are more drawn to female dealership employees

(statement 8), additionally, was consistent with overall results. In this statement, both the median

and mode suggested Segment 1 participants strongly agreed with this idea. Statement 9,

alternatively, did not produce consistent results. Participants (within segment 1 and overall) did

not agree as to whether male customers are more drawn to them.

While open-ended responses showed a level of discomfort in or exclusion from social

gatherings (from statement 10), Likert-scale responses do not align with the comments

participants provided. Nearly half of Segment 1 responses to statement 10 indicated that the

participants are not excluded from or uncomfortable in social gatherings at their dealerships.

Additionally, Segment 1 responses were divided in statement 11. Although 18

participants strongly disagreed and 6 disagreed, 12 strongly agreed and 8 agreed that they are

given fewer opportunities than males in their positions to showcase their skills.

Statement 12 responses appeared more parallel than are the former two. Twenty-five of

the 41 responses indicated that female automotive employees feel psychologically safe in their

team or workplace environments at their dealerships.

37
Table 5

Segment 1 Likert-Scale Data

Statement N Median Mode

1. I face gendered discrimination at my workplace. 48 4 5

2. I must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be 46 5 5

equally respected in my position.

3. I am withheld reward (pay, promotion, other forms of compensation) 45 2 1

because of my gender.

4. I am perceived with less competence because of my gender. 43 4 5

5. My employer understands the conflict between employment and 35 2 1

motherhood (if applicable).

6. I would feel more comfortable and confident with more female leaders 41 4 5

at my dealership.

7. I have been discouraged from working in an automotive dealership. 44 1 1

8. Female customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 47 5 5

when seeking services at my dealership.

9. Male customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 41 3 2

when seeking services at my dealership.

10. I am excluded from (or uncomfortable in) social gatherings 43 2 1

organized in my dealership.

11. I am given fewer opportunities than males in my position to 45 2 1

showcase my skills.

12. I feel psychologically safe* in my team or workplace environment 42 5 5

at my dealership.

38
 Hence, Segment 1 responses agree that females must possess greater expertise to be

equally respected (statement 2), they have not been discouraged from working in dealerships

(statement 7), female customers are more drawn to them at dealerships (statement 8), and they

feel psychologically safe at their dealerships (statement 12).

Still, Segment 1 responses deviated from overall responses for ten of the twelve

statements. For these ten, Segment 1 did not agree with overall results or did not agree as a

segment. In the other two statements, participants overall and participants in Segment 1

concurred that they have not been discouraged from working in automotive dealerships

(statement 7) and that they feel psychologically safe in their workplace environments (statement

12).

Even within the segment, however, responses lacked some unanimity. Participants in

Segment 1 were divided on statements 3, 9, and 11: Compensation, customer appeal, and

opportunity discrepancies among gender lines were unclear although open-ended responses

suggested the existence of such discrepancies.

Segment 2: Gender Bias Unaffected Participants

Open-Ended Responses

Segment 2, the smallest of the three (17 participants), is comprised of participants with

mixed feelings regarding gender in dealerships. While a few participants indicated gender having

a positive impact on their dealership experiences, others shared conflicting responses. For

example, 10 of the 17 participants answered that gender does not affect their workplace

experiences (question 1), yet they have witnessed or have experienced gender bias (question 3).

The wording of the questions may be a factor in this discrepancy; if a participant witnessed (but

did not experience) gender bias, she may have answered that gender does not affect her

39
workplace experiences. Alternatively, the participant may not have deemed the biases they

experience as important enough to impact their work at the dealership.

Table 6 displays quotes from those for whom gender has no impact in their workplace yet

who have witnessed or experienced gender biases (10 responses).

Table 6

Gender Biases without Impact to Experience at Dealership

Participant experienced gender bias but is not Participant witnessed gender bias but is not
impacted impacted
“I think that the men definitely get paid more “[Gender bias] manifests itself more overt
than the women in dealerships and are held to ways like female sales staff not being taken
a higher standard, taken more seriously seriously by customers, to the more covert
because of their gender” like the use of language like “sales guys””

“Not invited to male-only gatherings outside “I have witnessed male customers not want to
of the workplace” do business with female consultants”

For these reasons (according to the open-ended responses), Segment 2 participants did

not have definitive feelings regarding the effect of gender in their workplace. Based on question

1 (the impact of gender bias), Segment 2 participants align better with Segment 3; but, based on

question 3 (the existence of gender bias), Segment 2 participants align better with Segment 1.

Likert-Scale Responses

Though Segment 2 participants appeared somewhat indecisive based on their open-ended

responses, their Likert-scale responses showed some consistency. In this section, I analyze the

Segment 2 Likert-scale results (see Table 7) and compare responses with those of Segment 1 and

non-segmented results.

Based on the medians, modes, and proportion of participants answering in unison,

Segment 2 participants were generally consistent on seven of the twelve statements:

40
Segment 2 participants strongly disagreed that they faced gendered discrimination in their

workplaces (statement 1), strongly disagreed that they are withheld reward because of their

gender (statement 3), and disagreed or strongly disagreed that they are perceived with less

competence because of their gender (statement 4). Segment 2 participants also strongly disagreed

that they have been discouraged from working at an automotive dealership (statement 7),

strongly disagreed that they are excluded from social gatherings organized in their dealerships

(statement 10), strongly disagreed that they are given fewer opportunities than males to showcase

their skills (statement 11), and strongly agreed that they feel psychologically safe in their

dealership environments (statement 12).

Table 7

Segment 2 Likert-Scale Data

Statement N Median Mode

1. I face gendered discrimination at my workplace. 15 1 1

2. I must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be 14 2 1

equally respected in my position.

3. I am withheld reward (pay, promotion, other forms of compensation) 16 1 1

because of my gender.

4. I am perceived with less competence because of my gender. 17 1 1

5. My employer understands the conflict between employment and 16 4 5

motherhood (if applicable).

6. I would feel more comfortable and confident with more female leaders 11 4 5

at my dealership.

7. I have been discouraged from working in an automotive dealership. 16 1 1

41
 8. Female customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 12 3 1

when seeking services at my dealership.

9. Male customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 10 3 1

when seeking services at my dealership.

10. I am excluded from (or uncomfortable in) social gatherings 15 1 1

organized in my dealership.

11. I am given fewer opportunities than males in my position to 16 1 1

showcase my skills.

12. I feel psychologically safe* in my team or workplace environment 15 5 5

at my dealership.

Therefore, Segment 2 responses are inconsistent with Segment 1 responses. The only

statements for which both segments generally answered the same are statement 7 (I have been

discouraged from working at an automotive dealership—strongly disagreed), and statement 12 (I

feel psychologically safe in my team or workplace environment at my dealership—strongly

agreed). As previously noted, these same responses are consistent in the overall (non-segmented)

results.

Segment 3: Gender Bias Skeptic Participants

Open-Ended Responses

Participants within Segment 3 (27 in total) succinctly responded that their gender has not

impacted their workplace experience in dealerships and that they have not witnessed or faced any

gender biases in their dealerships. Over 85% of their responses to questions 1 and 3 were “No”,

“None” (or the alike) without explanation.

42
 Still, open-ended responses from Segment 3 were unwavering in the idea that gender has

no influence on their experiences and gender biases are non-existent. Though a majority of

Segment 3 participants neglected to elaborate on their answers, their responses alone were clear.

Likert-Scale Responses

As in the open-ended responses, Segment 3’s Likert-scale responses showed that they

strongly disagree with the existence and persistence of gender biases in the automotive industry.

Likert-scale responses from Segment 3 were overwhelmingly consistent as compared to overall

(non-segmented) results, and the medians and modes were accurate reflections of the response

breakdowns per question (See Table 8). I detail Segment 3 Likert-scale responses below.

Segment 3 was adamant that they do not face gendered discrimination at their workplaces

(statement 1), they do not need to possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be

equally respected (statement 2), they are not withheld reward because of their gender (statement

3), they are not perceived with less competence because of their gender (statement 4) and they

strongly disagreed that they would feel more comfortable and confident with more female

leaders at their dealerships (statement 6). In addition, participants also strongly disagreed that:

they have been discouraged from working in automotive dealerships (statement 7), female and

male customers are more drawn to them than to males in their positions (statements 8 and 9),

they are excluded from social gatherings organized in their dealerships (statement 10), and they

are given fewer opportunities than males to showcase their skills (statement 11). Moreover,

Segment 3 participants strongly agreed that they feel psychologically safe in their workplace

environments (statement 12).

A divide in responses for statement 5 was evident but not shown in Table 8.

Approximately 53% of responses reflected that participants’ employers understand the conflict

43
between employment and motherhood, meaning Segment 3 was not in full agreement on this

statement.

Table 8

Segment 3 Likert-Scale Data

Statement N Median Mode

1. I face gendered discrimination at my workplace. 24 1 1

2. I must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be 25 1 1

equally respected in my position.

3. I am withheld reward (pay, promotion, other forms of compensation) 24 1 1

because of my gender.

4. I am perceived with less competence because of my gender. 24 1 1

5. My employer understands the conflict between employment and 17 5 5

motherhood (if applicable).

6. I would feel more comfortable and confident with more female 19 1 1

leaders at my dealership.

7. I have been discouraged from working in an automotive dealership. 25 1 1

8. Female customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 19 1 1

when seeking services at my dealership.

9. Male customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position 16 1 1

when seeking services at my dealership.

10. I am excluded from (or uncomfortable in) social gatherings 23 1 1

organized in my dealership.

11. I am given fewer opportunities than males in my position to 23 1 1

showcase my skills.

44
 12. I feel psychologically safe* in my team or workplace environment 24 5 5

at my dealership.

As shown in Table 8, the 27 participants in Segment 3 answered unanimously for the

majority of the statements. Segments 2 and 3 were more comparable in their responses, though

Segment 1 is the largest of the three. Segment 3 participants also selected extreme responses,

meaning all three segments are adamant in their views.

Conclusion

Therefore, the participants in my research were split into two extreme segments (Segment

1 and Segment 3) and one moderate segment (Segment 2). Segment 2 illustrates more agreement

with Segment 3, yet the two segments still comprise less than half of the total participants. Little

overlap was found across open-ended responses per segment, yet a few Likert-scale results

paralleled in the three segments. Namely, participants agreed that they were not discouraged

from working at automotive dealerships (statement 7), and they feel psychologically safe in their

teams or workplace environments at their dealerships (statement 12). These results leave

researchers to question what other factors may contribute to the gender biases that Segment 1

described.

45
 DISCUSSION

In this section, I discuss my findings as they apply beyond my research study as well as

the conclusions of my study. While the conclusion section reveals results from my study, I chose

to supplement my study by conducting an interview with an exemplar female in the automotive

industry, Mary Catherine “Kitty” Van Bortel (personal communication, October 12, 2020). Van

Bortel, here, shares her insights and recommendations for females in the industry. Finally, I

complete my thesis by including opportunities for future research in the field.

Discussion of Findings

While my research findings provide evidence for the existence of gender biases for

females employed in automobile dealerships (though not all females), the discrepancy in

participant responses suggests additional factors affecting female experiences. Thus, my research

topic, “how do gender biases in the automotive industry affect the experiences of females

employed at dealerships,” remains at question. Some female automotive employees perceive

gender biases to affect their work experience; however, other females do not perceive gender

biases in their work settings. Below, I discuss the answer to the above question as it pertains to

all three segments and potential reasons for the polarization of answers.

Segment 1 (Gender bias conscious) is adamant regarding both the impact and existence

of gender biases in automobile dealerships. For Segment 1, the answer to my research question is

most clear: Gender biases in the automotive industry affect females employed at automobile

dealerships in their experiences with customers and employees. With both groups, Segment 1

46
participants feel they must possess greater subject matter expertise and that they are perceived

with less competence, specifically from male customers and employees. Additionally, while

participants report feeling psychologically safe, they also would feel more comfortable and

confident with more female leaders at their dealerships. The gender divide in female employee

perception implies that a greater female presence in the industry (both customers and employees)

would considerably improve the experiences of females employed in automobile dealerships.

For Segment 2 (Gender bias unaffected participants), the impact of gender biases in the

automotive industry on females employed at dealerships is slight. Though a majority of this

segment witnessed or experienced gender biases, they also relay that they are not affected.

Segment 2 participants generally answered that they are not withheld pay, are not excluded from

or uncomfortable in social settings, and are not given fewer opportunities than males. Hence, the

gender biases they experience could be minuscule in their minds, or they feel no personal impact

by witnessing, rather than experiencing, gender biases. Because the third open-ended question

asked for gender biases that participants “witnessed or faced,” no method exists to differentiate

among the two options. This vagueness in question 3 likely accounts for the inconsistent answers

that classify Segment 2.

Segment 3 (Gender bias skeptic participants) answers my research question in saying

gender biases do not exist at their dealerships. Though past research suggests gender biases do

pervade the industry as a whole, Segment 3 feels strongly that these biases do not carry over into

dealerships. Table 8 demonstrates that Segment 3 participants strongly disagree to statements

conveying the existence of gender biases and strongly agree to statements conveying the

opposite. The open-ended responses Segment 3 gave coincide with their extreme Likert-scale

responses. In this way, Segment 3 is distinct from the other segments.

47
 As mentioned, vague or missing survey elements may account for the skewed responses.

I excluded questions regarding demographics in my survey to protect the anonymity of

participants. However, had I asked the demographic-related questions, I may have identified

correlations among segments and demographics. Personality traits, too, may explain the distinct

answers among segments, and I did not account for these traits in my research.

Conclusion

Personal experiences, the industry’s history, and a gap in literature led me to pursue the

research question: How do gender biases in the automotive industry affect the experiences of

females employed at automobile dealerships? Based on my research findings, this question can

be answered in three ways:

1. Gender biases affect the experiences of females employed at automobile dealerships in

the form of customers and employees belittling, excluding, and not cooperating with

female employees.

2. Gender biases exist but do not affect the experiences of females employed at automobile

dealerships.

3. Gender biases do not exist in automobile dealerships.

While a majority of participants responded in accordance with answer 1, responses held greater

consistency for those aligning with answers 2 and 3. Therefore, the answer remains divided for

the research question.

Skewness, while evident for a majority of responses, is not the case for all. For example,

a strong majority of participants strongly disagree with the statement that they were discouraged

from working in an automobile dealership. Psychological safety is also a shared feeling for the

females surveyed. These consistent responses prompt us to question why so few females are

48
employed in dealerships, if not for discouragement or lack of psychological safety. Later in this

section, I list the types of questions that might point towards an answer to this issue. Further, if a

greater female presence would improve female employee experiences (as suggested above), the

above issue holds even more relevance.

Interview Implications

Beyond my own findings, my interview with Kitty Van Bortel (M. C. Van Bortel,

personal communication, October 12, 2020) provides witness to gender biases in the automotive

industry for the last forty years (see Appendix A). Yet, Van Bortel has overcome the

discrimination she faced and has been quite successful. From what began as a used car lot in her

yard is now four franchised dealerships. Van Bortel was also named TIME Dealer of the Year in

2016 (National Automobile Dealers Association, 2021).

Van Bortel recalls numerous encounters with males—both in the automotive industry and

outside—who doubted her ability to succeed in the industry. “It just wasn’t done,” she recalls.

She explains, “it was all because they had to show their power; they weren’t going to let a couple

women tell them what they were going to do.” Van Bortel emphasizes the “culture of

tremendous testosterone” that plagued the industry for years. So, after years of facing

discrimination as a female in the industry, she realized she could not work for someone else.

Still, starting a dealership came with issues of its own. Receiving a bank loan was one of

the notable obstacles she describes; in what likely would have been granted without further ado

to a male, she had to prove her profound automotive knowledge to earn.

Her eventual success came with commitment and competitiveness. Van Bortel also

references her “kind heart” that differentiates how she operates her dealerships as compared to

competitors and why her customers remain loyal. She says her kindness to customers and

49
employees has been crucial in her success, she describes, and has drawn many female employees

to her dealerships. Additionally, Van Bortel says female employees successfully leverage their

empathy in their interactions with customers.

Van Bortel also shares recommendations for females in automobile dealerships and for

the industry as a whole. “In any business,” she states, “you have to know what you’re doing.”

Confidence is also key, as are commitment and competitiveness, like referenced previously. In

addition, “You have to be able to separate men that are just trying to bring you down and men

that are really trying to help you.” She also maintains that she tries to mentor females who reach

out or ask for advice. Moreover, she asserts that, for the industry to really improve, “businesses

have to understand that motherhood comes first.” Based on my research, female employees who

are impacted by gender biases do not feel that employers understand the conflict between

employment and motherhood. Thus, the industry must offer greater flexibility to female

employees in order to relieve gender biases in dealerships.

The issues Van Bortel reveals align with those discovered in my research findings. Her

recommendations too, are applicable for females striving for success in the industry. However,

further research is still necessary to question, expose, and mitigate gender biases in the

automotive industry.

Future Research

As stated, I encourage researchers to conduct studies that delve deeper into gender biases

in the automotive industry. Specifically: what causes females employed at automobile

dealerships to have such polarizing experiences? For instance, if a survey, first, inquired whether

a female dealership employee (1) experiences gender bias, (2) witnesses gender bias, and (3) is

impacted by gender bias, researchers could reform the aforementioned segments my survey

50
produced. Then, a collection of basic information (age, race, sexuality, political affiliation,

highest level of education, geographic region, longevity in the dealership, position in tge

dealership, size of the dealership, female leaders at the dealership, etc.) could reveal if any

correlations exist among demographics and segment.

Demographic information, though more easily gathered, only reveals incomplete

information about a participant. Hence, analyzing personality traits, too, may aid researchers in

making connections regarding the existence of biases for female automobile dealership

employees. I recommend further studies assessing personality and behavioral information to

enhance the findings in my research.

My research answered the question of “how” gender biases affect the experiences of

females employed at automobile dealerships, but future research (as outlined above) would

answer the question of “why” gender biases affect the experiences of females employed at

automobile dealerships so differently. The inclusion of these elements would allow researchers

to make more thorough recommendations for eliminating biases in the industry.

Another way future research could enhance my survey is by changing the verbiage of my

survey questions. Instead of asking about the existence of certain issues broadly (which some

participants may be conditioned to ignore or overlook), inquiring about more specific instances

without the use of terms like “discrimination”, “exclusion”, “bias”, etc. may produce better

results.

In addition to refining the survey elements, broadening the scope of participants would

increase the representation in responses. Though the quantity of my responses aligns with that of

comparable studies, my study was confined by a timeline in which I collected responses in less

51
than a month. With a more flexible timeline in future research, more responses may mean more

precise data.

Furthermore, female employee experiences fail to encompass complete explanations for

gender biases, as females are a minority in the automotive industry. Collecting data from male

employees in the industry to gauge their experiences and insights pertaining to gender biases

would also enrich the existing research. Or, moreover, studies to investigate male customer and

employee attitudes and behaviors toward female automotive employees could also reveal any

gender biases. While males may be reluctant to acknowledge their own biased perceptions in a

survey, an observational study may reveal male attitudes and behaviors towards female

dealership employees in a more natural environment. This information would either confirm or

negate the experiences that participants describe in my survey.

Therefore, my findings warrant further research on gender biases in the automotive

industry. My research describes how female employees are affected but fails to capture why

females have such diverse experiences. Demographic factors and personality traits may be

correlated with the varying responses my survey produced; further research would clarify this

issue. Additionally, further research that enlarges the response rate may improve results and

segment breakdowns. Lastly, if future research extended the participant group to males, or

developed experiments to test female employee relationships with customers and male

employees, the research would reinforce and/or expand my research findings.

52
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW WITH KITTY VAN BORTEL

53
I conducted an interview with Mary Catherine “Kitty” Van Bortel on October 12, 2020 from
7:05pm – 7:45pm via telephone. “B” denotes dialogue I spoke; “V” denotes dialogue Kitty Van
Bortel spoke.

B: Thank you so much for taking some time out of your evening to meet with me.

V: My pleasure.

B: All right. Well, I guess we'll just kind of get the ball rolling, and you can share as much as
you'd like for any of these questions. I understand you're on a busy schedule, but I'd appreciate
any insights you can give. But just first off, can you share your current role and accomplishments
and sort of how you got there?

V: Well, that's a lot. I’m the president of four franchise dealerships, two Subaru dealerships, a
Ford dealership and a Chevrolet dealership. I’m in my thirty-fifth year in business. I started as a
used car dealer in 1985 with literally $500 to my name, which was also part of a MasterCard
credit card that I was using. I got fired from my job. Last job I had in prior to 1985 was a sales
manager for a Mercedes-Benz and BMW dealership in my town.

And the day I got fired, the general manager came in and told me that he was going to replace
me with a team of men. And at that point, after being in the car business and working for other
car dealers for 10 years and seeing the abuse that women were experiencing back in the 80s, not
only the abuse of employees, including me, but also the abuse of female customers coming into
car dealerships.

B: I guess I'll have you elaborate some more on some of those. So, what would you define as the
key events leading up to where you've got to where you are? You were fired. And was that
something that sort of fueled you to move forward or?

V: Yes, in fact, it became clear to me that I could no longer work in the car business for someone
else because of just a tremendous amount of discrimination against women. I had attended, I had
a few things in my history that I think kind of all culminated through this.

My father was a car dealer when I was young, really successful, but had some demons. He lost
his business in 1981. I never even considered working there, not because my father was a
chauvinist, but I mean it was just in the 70s and early 80s that it just wasn’t done, and there just
weren't women in the automobile business. But at the same time, I learned a tremendous amount
from him. I actually worked for him for two years in the middle of this whole thing and found it
a lot easier to try to work for someone else.

But he sort of catapulted me into starting to work for other car dealers. Although I did work as a
salesperson, I do have a cool story about my very first sales job, but we can go into that maybe a
little later. But I think that I had a lot of knowledge about the automobile business, and I wasn't
appreciated or respected. So, it got to the point where I just had to move on to my own business.
And I think that the real interest I had at the time was being able to sell cars to women because I

54
just saw how they were literally treated very poorly, especially if they came in alone.

I mean, I saw when I was working in Mercedes-Benz and BMW, I would see brilliant women
walking in the door with men they didn't even know, their mechanics or brothers or sisters
because they just, I'm sorry, brothers or fathers, because they just knew they wouldn’t be taken
seriously. You know, a lot of that’s changed now is better, but. I think that kind of catapulted me
into realizing that every human that comes into a dealership really needs to be treated with
respect, and it became more and I’m kind of jumping ahead now, but it became more of the idea
of using my womanhood to understand the empathy that you needed in order to be a car dealer.
Because, you know, it's for me, it was realizing that people needed help, that in my town,
Rochester, New York, there's very little mass transportation. We don’t have any trains. We have
very few buses. So, people in my area, in upstate New York, are very dependent on their
automobile. And I get the sensitivity being a woman to really understand that. So, it became
more about not selling iron, but selling, but not interested in selling iron, but really being more
interested in the human behind the iron, what they were feeling when they heard a noise and they
didn't know what it was.

They're making payments and, you know, just all the things that would help to alleviate that
stress for them. Well, for instance, making sure that my people always call people back three
times a day for service in contacting them and letting them know everything was going to be
okay or taking care of problems that maybe the factory wouldn't take care of it. And then that
kind of evolved into just really building the brand, you know, and the brand was: I’m caring. I'm
loving. I'm here for you. And then as the years went on, I had to train five hundred people to feel
the same way I did, which is, still even today, not done in car dealerships. The other piece of it
was I grew up during the 60s. Two of those pieces I grew up during the 60s, and my father was
kind of a show and go kind of a guy. And I was kind of a product of being like loose, like a
hippie.

So I didn't really, I never bought into the money part of it. It was all about peace and love and
being kind and all this stuff. And then I ended up going to an all-women's college during the 70s,
which was really the height of the women's movement. So, I was really able to understand the,
you know, the issues between men and women during that period of time. And actually, when I
first started, I'll tell you about my first experience of working at a car dealership.

It was between my junior and senior year of college. My parents divorced. And so, I lost the car
that the loaner I had my whole life growing up business and decided that if I could get a summer
job working as a salesperson, that they would give me a loaner car. Because back then when you
were a salesperson, you got a demo. So all I was concerned about was having transportation
really for my senior year, my summer between my junior and senior year.

And so there was an ad in the paper, I went to this dealership and it turned out that the sales
manager was from California, and in California back in 1975-76, they had female selling cars in
California, but in Rochester, New York, I mean it was nobody had ever heard of it, but I was
able to, in a very short period of time talking to him, make him realize that I could definitely sell

55
cars.

So he hired me on the spot. So that night, the owner of the dealerships called me, and he said,
“Listen, you know, there's been a really, really big mistake. You know, I can't hire you. All my
male salespeople would leave.” At that point, it was kind of entertaining to me because, you
know, I was always very confident about my sexuality and very confident that I was totally equal
to everybody else.

And I said, “Well, this is just an old system. I got to get around this.” So, I said to him, “Well,
why don't you don't even know me? How about if I go meet them and then they can, you know,
maybe they'd feel differently.” So, he said to me, keep in mind this is 1975, he said to me,
“Okay, you know the man says you're really good. I think this would be kind of interesting.
Come and meet all the salespeople, and then we have our meeting and our sales meeting on
Saturday morning. We'll take a vote, and we'll see if we vote you in then we vote you in.” So,
you know, I was twenty years old, attractive, nice figure. And I went in there to talk to all these
guys and, you know, they voted me in. But they all told me later it was just because they thought
they were going to get a piece of ass.

I was a top salesperson there that summer, and then I went back after I graduated from college,
because the owner at that point called me like in March or April, my senior year, and said,
“Listen, if you come back, I'll have a brand new red Mustang demo for you.” So, I did, and I
worked for him until it closed. And then that's actually when my father kind of smartened up and
said, “Well maybe you should work for me,” so I went to work for my father for a couple of
years. And he taught me the used car business, which was vital as far as really understanding
how automobile dealerships work because used cars come and trade and that’s your cash so you
need to be able to move it quickly, to know what the car’s worth, to understand a good car from a
bad car and he taught me all that.

In fact, it’s interesting that at one point he asked me If I would go down into Manheim. Now
Manheim is the largest automobile auction in the world, in Harrisburg PA. He asked if I would
take 12 cars down there and run them through the auction. So, I did that. He gave me all the
guided instructions and told me to make sure the cars were all ready and get them lined up for
the auction. So, I walked into the auction and stood up on the block, which is where every seller
stands when they’re making the bids on your automobile. And when I got up on the block, the
auctioneer said “A woman can’t stand on the block. There’s never been a woman to stand on the
block.” And so, I said “I’ve got a lot of cars here they’re all lined up. I don’t know what you
want me to do.” So he said “You know your father’s been a really good customer here for years
now, but we’re going to have to call him up because there’s no way a woman can stand on the
block.” So, they stopped the whole auction; I’m standing up there, and they call my father. At
that point, my father said to him, “If you don’t let her run this auction, I’ll never let my cars
come to your auction again” So they let me run the cars, and, at that point, I was the first woman
to ever run cars in the Manheim Auto Auction. It was really cool for me, and I love to tell that
story because that was a big deal. That was back in 1982-83. So yeah, that’s probably one of the
most interesting stories I can tell you about the early history.

56
B: How would you say it’s changed in terms of discrimination in the business, if at all?

V: Well, you can look it up, but I think the statistic is only 3% of the franchised automobile
dealers in the United States are women. It could be a little higher, but keep in mind a lot of
women that are now running dealerships are women that their husbands died or they’ve got a
daughter coming into the business. But I don’t think it’s any more than max 5%.

B: I’ll look into that. Did you have any other stories about the discrimination you faced, or others
worth sharing; I’m sure you have many… but off the top of your head?
V: It was such a culture of tremendous testosterone. Well, I do remember one day I was working
on my master’s degree, and I was working part time at this Buick dealership, and we have a lot
of snow and there were two females and the manager said to us, “You go out and brush off all
the cars.” And you know he thought it was funny. And we said, “We don’t mind, but we want all
the guys to come brush off the cars too.” And they said, “You either brush off these cars, you
two or you’re going to get fired.” So, I quit on the spot and she ended up getting fired.

But I mean it was all because they had to show their power; they weren’t going to let a couple
women tell them what they were going to do. So that was my last day there and that was her last
day there. But it was just it was so obvious the idea was everyone did it we worked together.

B: Right. Yeah, so some of these things I’m hearing them, and it sounds like I’m laughing, but
it’s just absurd… unthinkable the way that y’all are treated and that I’m sure females still are.

V: I can tell you another story. When I first got my sole proprietorship to sell used cars, I rented
a house, and I lived upstairs, and I sold them off the yard. It was a fairly busy road, so quite a bit
of traffic. Well anyway, after about a year, I developed a relationship with a local bank, and I
went down to talk to the owner of the bank, and I convinced him to give me a $30k line of credit.
He was a very liberal guy, lots of education; he was very excited about helping women, and it
was all going great. As the time went on 1986 or 87, up until 89, I had raised that line every year
up to $400k so I was really able to do some business with used cars. So, what happened was I
wanted to get the Subaru franchise; there was a lot of land, still renting, but there was a lot of
land to build the Subaru dealership next to this house, so I started working on that, but I needed a
line of credit from Subaru. In other words, every car dealer in the country, you see the cars on the
block they’re financed in what they call floorplans. So, I needed a $200k floorplan line in order
to qualify for a Subaru dealership. Of course, the other thing was I had a used car business, and I
was a woman.

But anyway, I went to the bank, and I met with these two guys, and there’s a committee at the
bank; there’s 5 guys, and you need at least 3 in order to get things approved. So, I’d gone back to
the owner of the bank, and I said, “Listen I need this $200k line of credit,” and he said, “Okay
well I’ve got to take it back to the committee.” So, it goes to the committee, and the owner of the
bank calls me back and he said, “Well the problem is there were 5 on the committee, and I was
the only one who voted yes, and we need 3 votes.” But he said to me, and I said, “Well let me go
to the committee and explain how Subarus are going to be so important, especially for women,”
because back then it was the only SUV that was like a car. I mean everything else was big k5

57
blazers and big pick-up trucks and all-wheel drives and not anything when it came to women. So,
you can go back and look at that and take a look at the vehicles that were all wheel drives in the
late 80s and there was nothing. And I thought this is an incredible vehicle for women, so that was
all part of that.

So anyway, the bank president said to me, Well listen let me see if I can get you to meet with 2
of the guys. Because if we can get 2 of the guys, that’s 3 and then we can take it back to the
committee.” So that was fine, so the next day I happened to walk into one of the branches of the
bank, and one of the guys that I was going to meet, his wife, worked at the bank at this branch.
So, I walked into the branch; I hadn’t met with the two guys yet. And she said to me, ‘Kitty
come on in this office and close the door.” She came in and said, “Listen, I just want you to
know there’s only one reason why my husband was saying no.” I said, “Well what’s that?” She
said, “Because you’re a woman, and he doesn’t think you can do it.” So, actually, having that
wife tell me that actually helped me in my presentation, so I always give her a little credit for
that. Anyway, I went in and I’ll tell you the story.

I went in a few days later and met with the two guys, and I really went through the whole thing
very logically of why this was such a great car for women and so on. So, the guy that was the
husband of the wife that told me this, he, all of a sudden, out of the blue, he says to me, keep in
mind this is the late 80s, he says to me, “You know I don’t like foreign cars.” And I said, “Okay,
well what do you drive?” And he said, “Well I drive a Ford Tempo,” or something I can’t
remember what it was, I think it was a Ford Tempo. “Well did you know that that car has a
complete Mitsubishi engine?” He said, “It does not”. I said, “The only thing that’s American on
this car is the body and maybe the upholstery and the interior. But the whole transmission and
engine on this Ford is a Mitsubishi.” He said, “That is not true.” I said, “Well is the car here?”
He went, “Yeah.” So, we go out to the parking lot, and I open up the hood, and of course all
underneath the hood, all it says is Mitsubishi. And I think that knowledge that I had the fact that
this bank manager is telling me that he won’t drive anything but an American car when he’s
actually driving a Mitsubishi, I think the knowledge of that and just the antics of how I handled
that really did help me, because I went in the next day, and they told me I had both of those
guys’ votes, so I had the three that I needed and got the $200k. Yeah that was the beginning of it.

B: Well, do you feel that you had to, certainly, put forth more work than a man would have to
gain credibility and competency in that scenario?

V: Absolutely.

B: You know I’ve been doing this research, and I came across your name in another article, and I
did want to get the interview with you to add to my research. I’ve seen all of this, but it’s good to
get some personal instances here. So, going from that, how would you say that you really broke
out of that traditional stereotype? I mean you, obviously, had to get your own dealership and
multiply that into four, but what would you say were the key events that really brought you
there? Or individuals?

58
V: First of all, I’d have to say ages helped. You know when I was 30 or 35, and I have these 60
or 65 year old guys that were trying to make decisions for me you know in the banking world or
the manufacture world, it was difficult. But when I became 50 of 55, and these guys were in their
40s or 50s, I had a lot more strength because, not only did I have the experience and the track
record, but the older I get the easier it gets because these guys would much rather mess with a 30
or 35 year old woman than a 50 or 55 year old woman that has been proven to be successful. So,
I think that has been a big help, not only for the bureaucracy that I deal with, but also for my
employees. I had to really start getting younger guys that were much more open to equality and a
lot of young guys that were taking care of their children. You know when I first started there
weren’t any men who were taking care of their children. So, things have changed a lot. And then
as I have gotten older, these younger guys are much more accepting of women.

B: Absolutely, absolutely. Okay and this is kind of my last question but I’m sure you have a lot
to speak to, but what advice do you have for women seeking a career in the business?

V: Well, first of all, you have to know what you’re doing, in any business. Also, you have to be
confident. You have to be able to separate men that are just trying to bring you down and men
that are really trying to help you. And sometimes it’s hard to make that distinction. I would say
that there’s still discrimination. I mean I have managers that are extremely good at what they do
but there’s still an underlying feeling about women versus men, especially salespeople. Women
salespeople for instance, will spend a lot more. Well, there’s a lot of things. The women that
work for me, and I have a lot of women working for me, are much more methodical, they delve
deeper when they’re talking to customers really trying to get to the essence of what the problem
is so they can fix it. Whereas men want to just brush it off and get it over with quickly, and they
don’t want to take the time to really get to the bottom of the problem. So that’s an issue that I
have with my managers sometimes because sort of this female salesperson that is really doing
well but spends too much time with a customer. And, of course, I have men that are just rushing
through everything to make a dollar, and they don’t take the time to really build my brand.

You know, there’s really 3 things that have made me successful. Number one is that I really have
a kind heart. I want to help people. I just realize how important the car is to the human, and it’s
just all about, and it’s a life’s work to be able to make a difference in people’s lives. And it’s an
area that I’m very well-versed in. I know exactly how to help people and I know a lot about the
car business, and I can cut through it and make a difference.

The second thing is from the very beginning I realized this is a long-term commitment and that I
was not going to make money overnight. In fact, I didn’t make money for ten years. But I looked
at it long-term. So, in other words, a customer came in and I was a used car dealer, and he would
buy a $4000 car for me that according to NY state a 30 day or a 60 day or a 3000-mile guarantee,
and I would sell this car to a customer, maybe making a 24 month payments. Let’s say 6 months
or 8 months a year in, the mission and the tran breaks or the engine ceases, I fix those cars for
customers because I tried really hard and it really worked to build that reputation so that no one,
and my business has all been extremely successful from word of mouth, repeat and referral
business. And it’s important though that the way to do that is to, when you take policy. So, what
happens is these managers are all paid a percentage of profits, but if they are having to choose

59
between grabbing a customer for money or ripping up a repair order because they want to help
the customer, and that’s based on their paycheck, it’s very difficult to get them to do that because
they’ve got families and they’re trying to. So, early on, I set up an account in all of my
dealerships when anytime a customer needs something, it goes to that account; it doesn’t affect
their pay. Frankly, that’s been very helpful for men. For women, I would tend to say well I’ll
take care of it; I’m sensitive to the situation. Whereas men, especially if they’re the only
breadwinner in the family, they’ve got to think about their own family and how they’re going to
support it. So, they’ve got that before the dealership. Any time any policy needs to be taken care
of, if the customer needs to buy a car and a month later they’ve got all kinds of problems, and we
have to get them into a new car, whatever that car is or whatever we want to give away in the
service department, whatever those costs are go directly to a policy account, and that does not
affect them. So, building that brand has been key and really is responsible for that. In fact, I was
just talking to my controller an hour ago, and we are right almost where we were last year
without getting any of the money, we usually get ppp, I don’t know if you’re familiar with that,
but the federal government gave all businesses a tremendous amount of money to keep their
payroll, and we kept all of our payroll and didn’t have to use any of that money because of 35
years of building that brand.

The third piece of it is, I’m extremely competitive. I do not like a single car dealer that is in my
market because I worked for 3 or 4 of them, and they all treated me and other women horribly. I
hire a lot of women that still to this day come from other dealerships because they’re not
respected and/or appreciated. So that competitive spirit works well with having a kind heart and
a total lack of interest in making money and total interest in building the brand. And it’s been
extremely successful for me financially.

B: Well, that’s great to hear, and I really like that you included that you have a kind heart
because I know that goes, just in terms of my values, I know that goes a longer way than people
give it credit. But is there a network for women in the industry or some sort of mentorship
program or association?

V: There’s a woman’s network for every franchise that I have. Yes, and I have really tried to
help women in those networks. I’m not really super active but I gave a talk to all the women who
worked at Subaru America not too long ago. I try to mentor any woman that contacts me or calls
me or wants advice.

B: But in terms of a national organization, or something, is there anything, to your knowledge?

V: No.

B: Interesting.

V: I’m not saying there isn’t, but nothing I’m involved with. As far as my associations, I’m very
involved with women’s organizations, for instance the Susan B. Anthony house, which is Susan
B. Anthony lived in Rochester. Obviously now getting as many women as possible to vote in this
election has been extremely important, and I’ve worked a lot on that. I’m also a breast cancer

60
survivor so I do a lot of work with the Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester. Then, there’s
another organization called IUC (?) Kids, and that’s a local organization, and that is one of the
coolest ones I work with because it was started by 3 guys, 3 brothers who are really good friends
of mine, and what they do is they started this organization about 10 years ago, and what they do
is they take families that have kids in the hospital with serious trouble – they have cancer or they
have long-term illnesses so that one parent got to stay at the hospital so that at best only one
parent can work. So, what they do, when that income is sometimes cut in half, sit down with the
family, find out where they need help, make their mortgage payments, make their car payments,
help with groceries do whatever their need is, so that one parent can always stay with the child at
the hospital. So, that’s just a little about what we do in Rochester through the University of
Rochester Medical Center and also Rochester Regional Health.

And one of the reasons I really want to work with women’s organizations starting out is, as far as
charities are concerned, is there aren’t a lot of charities that are supported that affect women so
much that are really supported like a lot of other male charities.

B: Okay, yeah. Thank you for sharing your community work and your advice for women. Those
were all of the questions I had prepared. Did you have anything else that might be valuable for
women entering the business to know or to do? Or any other details you wanted to share about
the discrimination you faced or anything along those lines?

V: Well, I would just say that, if we’re talking about being an entrepreneur, you have to give up a
lot. I didn’t get married until I was in my 40s, and I had a child at 44. So, I really did have an
advantage in being able to focus on the business and not be distracted by, and I don’t mean that
in a bad way, to be torn between having a family and a business, so I have to say it was easier for
me. I really was able to build the business enough so that when I had a child, although I really
didn’t spend much time with her until she was probably 10 but, she still calls me out on that by
the way, but you know during her teenage years and going to college, when it got to the point
when she really needed guidance, I was there. But you know a lot of women don’t have that. I
was singly focused. I had a lot to prove as far as these obnoxious men, and I was determined. But
it’s hard work, you know, and it’s long-term.

And you know, you have to have a lot of confidence in yourself, and you have to believe in
something and have tremendous passion without regard to whether you’re male or female
because it’s a long road to get to where I am now. So, I think that if you really want to be an
entrepreneur, you know it’s hard to be dual focused. I find myself even today, Rebecca, you
know my daughter is 22 years old, she’s living in Florida working on her master’s degree, but
even today, it takes a lot of my time to spend time with her. But, fortunately, I can afford to do
that now.

One last thing: The one that I believe truthfully with any business, is that businesses have to
understand that motherhood comes first. And I think that was part of the success of me, being
able to hire a lot of women because I would have sales managers say, “You know she doesn’t
come in until 9:30 and every other guy is here at 8:30” well that’s because she has to get 3 of her
children on the bus. You know so I’ve been able to train the men that work for me to understand

61
motherhood, and the way I did it was explain to them how they feel about their own wives. You
know if you are, I always tell them, if my daughter ends up in jail, nobody is going to talk to me
about what a great car dealer I was. Right? They’re all going to say, “Well she’s a good car
dealer but certainly couldn’t raise a good child.” And to me, if you are a female, motherhood has
got to come first. We need to get organizations to understand that and to make concessions for
that.

B: There’s definitely a conflict of priority from the different perspectives when there really
shouldn’t be.

V: And they love to say it, “You know she doesn’t work that hard; she’s with her kids all the
time; she’s doing this she’s doing that.” That’s ridiculous. Every man that’s married wants a
mother that raises a successful child.
B: Certainly. Well thank you for all of your insights and expertise. I’m sure that anyone who
comes across my research… I’ll be sure to send you what I include of our discussion, but I know
all of these implications are going to be extremely helpful, so thank you for your willingness to
share your time and some of your stories with me.

V: Yes, when you get that thesis done, send it to me.

B: I will. I don’t think it will be officially published until the spring, but I will plan to stay in
contact and certainly send that your way.

V: And, as you’re going along, if you come up with any questions, just send me a text and we’ll
meet again.

B: Absolutely, I really appreciate that.

V: My pleasure Rebecca. Good luck to you.

B: Have a good one thank you so much.

V: Bye.

62
APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL

63
 Per federal regulation, an IRB must review any research involving human subjects. The
research must be approved or declared eligible for exemption before an investigator can
implement his or her methodology.

64
APPENDIX C: RESEARCH PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

65
 Research Participant Consent Form
Purpose of Research

As a respondent, you will answer questions pertaining to gender biases in automotive

dealerships. Survey questions will be presented in the form of three open-ended questions and
twelve Likert scale questions. By participating in this survey, you are agreeing that you (1)
identify as a female, (2) have been employed at an automotive dealership for at least two years,
and (3) your position at the automotive dealership is/was in management, sales, marketing,
finance, accounting, or operations.

Rights to Participate

Your participation in this research is voluntary and not participating will not affect your
relationship to UNC. You have the right to withdraw at any point in the survey even after
consenting to participate. You have the right to refrain from answering questions. Any
identifying information (i.e. your email) will be kept confidential and remain unattached from
your responses.

Contact Information and Concerns

Investigator contact information:

Rebecca Black
(910) 705-0685
[email protected]

Benefits and Risks

This research aims to mitigate gender biases in the automotive industry by determining the extent
to which gender biases affect women in the industry. Your contribution will be the greatest asset
to this research. If desired, you may contact me to view the study when complete (estimated
completion is May of 2021). However, any research study has the potential for confidentiality
breaches. I have detailed the issues of privacy and confidentiality below:

Privacy and Confidentiality

To protect your identity as a research subject, I am taking the following measures:

• I will not ask your name.

• I will use a VPN connection to minimize the risk of hackers.
• I have Anti-Spyware software on the computer that will protect the data.
• I will protect access to my computer (and therefore the study data) with adequate security
measures*.

66
 • I will protect access to my email account (and therefore participants’ email addresses)
with adequate security measures* and only access when using a VPN connection.
• I will follow patch management and system administrative best practices in terms of
storing and accessing my data.
• I will follow relevant guidelines of ITS Security's Standards and Practices for Storing or
Processing Sensitive Data.

Should you have concerns or questions about this research, such as scientific issues, how to
answer any part of it, or would like to offer input, or register a complaint about the research, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the University of North Carolina’s Office of Human
Research Ethics at 919-966-3113 or [email protected]. A copy of this consent form is
attached for your keeping.

A signature is not a required element of consent. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing the survey linked below.

Click here to access the survey or you may access it via the survey link in your email.

*My adequate security measures include locking my computer/email account with a username
and password that meet the complexity and change management requirements of a UNC
ONYEN.

67
APPENDIX D: HISTOGRAMS OF SKEWED DATA

68
Statement 1 - I face gendered discrimination at my workplace.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Statement 2 - I must possess greater subject-matter expertise than males to be equally respected in my
position.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Statement 4 - I am perceived with less competence because of my gender.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

69
Statement 5 - My employer understands the conflict between employment and motherhood (if applicable).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

__________________________________________________________________________________

Statement 6 - I would feel more comfortable and confident with more female leaders at my dealership.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Statement 8 - Female customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position when seeking
services at my dealership.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

70
Statement 9 - Male customers are more drawn to me than to males in my position when seeking services
at my dealership.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly agree

71
 References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7),
64–65.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279898134_Likert_scales_and_data_analyses

Appelbaum, S. H., Asham, N., & Argheyd, K. (2011). Is the glass ceiling cracked in information
technology. A qualitative analysis. Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(7), 451–
459. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1108/00197851111171881

Artz, B., Goodall, A. H., & Oswald, A. J. (2018). Do women ask?. Industrial Relations, 57(4),
611–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12214

Ayres, I. (1991). Fair driving: Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Faculty
Scholarship Series, 1540. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1540

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Methods and practices. University of South
Florida.

Brown, E. R., & Diekman, A. B. (2013). Differential effects of female and male candidates on
system justification: Can cracks in the glass ceiling foster complacency?. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1951

Bullock, C. L. (2019). Driving new narratives: Women-leader identities in the automotive

industry. Gender in Management, 34(3), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2017-
0135

Catalyst. (2020). Women in the automotive industry: Quick take. [Data set].
https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-automotive-industry/

Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2010). Perceiving glass ceilings? Meritocratic versus structural
explanations of gender inequality among women in science and technology. Social
Problems, 57, 371–397. http://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.3.371

Charniga, J. (2019, March 25). Check out the top 150 U.S. dealership groups. Automotive News.
https://www.autonews.com/dealers/check-out-top-150-us-dealership-groups

Cohen, J. R., Dalton, D. W., Holder-Webb, L., & McMillan, J. J. (2020). An analysis of glass
ceiling perceptions in the accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(1), 17–
38. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4054-4

Darley, W. K., Luethge, D. J., & Thatte, A. (2008). Exploring the relationship of perceived
automotive salesperson attributes, customer satisfaction and intentions to automotive
service department patronage: The moderating role of customer gender. Journal of

72
 Retailing & Consumer Services, 15(6), 469–479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2008.01.002

Data USA. (2020). Car dealers. [Data set]. https://datausa.io/profile/naics/car-dealers

Dhar, R., Prakash, V., & Singh, B. (2018). Gender inequality: A comparison of India and USA.
Reflecting on India’s Development, 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1414-
8_12

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Esser, A., Kahrens, M., Mouzughi, Y., & Eomois, E. (2018). A female leadership competency
framework from the perspective of male leaders. Gender in Management, 33(2), 138–
166. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2017-0077

Foley, S., Ngo, H., Loi, R., & Zheng, X. (2015). Gender, gender identification and perceived
gender discrimination. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,
34(8). http://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2015-0038

Forcino, F. L., & Salter, R. L. (2017). Are open ended questions worth the extra time? A
comparison of open-ended, multiple choice, and Likert scale items for assessing the
general public's understanding of evolution. Abstracts with Programs – Geological
Society of America, 49(3). http://doi.org/10.1130/abs/2017SE-290191

Gerlach, L. (2020). Women in male-dominated careers: Interactions between early career

experiences of tokenism and future career trajectories. Kenan-Flagler Business School.
https://doi.org/10.17615/j2wp-kg29

Howard, E. (2018). Business history review [Review of the book Women at the wheel: A century
of buying, driving, and fixing cars Business History Review, by K. Parkin]. 92(4), 801–
803. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680519000230

Iseke, A., & Pull, K. (2019). Female executives and perceived employer attractiveness: On the
potentially adverse signal of having a female CHRO rather than a female CFO. Journal
of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1113–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3640-1

Kopestinsky, A. (2021, February 27). 20 in-depth global and U.S. auto sales statistics for 2021.
Policy Advice. https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/us-auto-sales-statistics/

Leonard, R. A. Jr. (2016). Females in automotive careers: Career decision-making influences and
experiences during university preparation and beyond. Western Michigan University
Dissertations. 1608. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1608

73
Lezotte, C. (2015). Women auto know: Automotive knowledge, auto activism, and women's
online car advice. Feminist Media Studies, 15(4), 691–706.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.987151

Mayer, C., & van Zyl, L. E. (2013). Perspectives of female leaders on sense of coherence and
mental health in an engineering environment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2),
1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1097

National Automobile Dealers Association (2016, April 1). Van Bortel is named 2016 TIME
dealer of the year. https://www.nada.org/2016Convention/TIMEdealer/

Newsweek. (2019). America’s best car dealers 2019. https://www.newsweek.com/best-car-

dealers-usa-2019

O’Connor, C. (2016, February 22). Aerospace, automotive among worst industries for gender
equality: Report. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2016/02/22/aerospace-automotive-among-
worst-industries-for-gender-equality-report/#6158820a6cdb

Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.

Pullman, M., McGuire, K., & Cleveland, C. (2005). Let me count the words: Quantifying open-
ended interactions with guests. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
46(3), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010880405276309

Rajan, S., Bhattacharya, J., Mandviwala, Y., & Jain, D. (2017). Changing gears 2020: How
digital is transforming the face of the automotive industry. Bain & Company.
https://www.bain.com/insights/changing-gears-2020/

Říha, D., Heinze, T., & Stros, M. (2017). Intercultural variations in personal sales factors in the
Czech and U.S. automotive markets: Practical implications for marketing. Central
European Business Review, 6(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.171

Sabin, J. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2012). The influence of implicit bias on treatment
recommendations for 4 common pediatric conditions: Pain, urinary tract infection,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma. American Journal of Public Health,
102(5), 988–995. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300621

Sandhu, N. (2019). Fueling gender stereotypes: A content analysis of automobile advertisements.

Business Perspectives & Research, 7(2), 163–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533719833815

Staker, A. (2020). The gender funding gap within the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the United
States: Does a correlation exist among gender, industry, and funding?. Kenan-Flagler
Business School. https://doi.org/10.17615/ae0h-xv10

74
Tranter, K., & Martin, D. (2013). The cutting edge of cocking about: Top gear, automobility and
law. Law and Humanities, 7(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5235/17521483.7.1

Williamson, C. (2014). The effect of family-work biases on women’s promotions. Kenan-

Flagler Business School. https://doi.org/10.17615/87wb-cj96

Willig, C. (2017). Interpretation in qualitative research. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 16, 274–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555.n16

75