Personnel managers examined vignettes in which an employee had made a serious judgmental error. The employee was seen in a traditional male position (construction supervisor, production manager), or in a relatively more female-identified position (public relations officer, executive secretary), and was identified as male or female. Individuals employed in male-identified positions were viewed as more competent than those in traditional female positions. Overall, evaluations were correlated with recommended personnel actions. Punishing personnel action was least likely to be recommended, however, for males employed in traditional male positions. The results are interpreted as consistent with role theory and with certain attributional concepts. Implications are discussed for career strategy and for personnel policy.THE past two decades have seen the growth of an impressive body of literature concerning employment sex discrimination (Blaxall and Reagan, 1977;Larwood and Wood, 1977;Lloyd, 1975). Researchers and employers have become increasingly familiar both with discrimination in the recruitment and selection processes (cf. Cohen and Bunker, 1975;Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback, 1975;Rosen and Jerdee, 1974), and with discrimination in the salary levels accorded women who do find satisfactory employment (cf. Levitin, Quinn, and Staines, 1971;Sommers, 1974;Staines, Quinn, and Shepard, 1976;Terborg and Ilgen, 1975). So far, however, there seems to be little statistical change in women's position relative to that of men either as a result of our new awareness of discrimination or as a result of Reprints may be obtained from the first author at the Department of Psychology, Claremont Men's College (coeducational), Claremont, CA 917! 1. Copyright 0 1979 by PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC. 539 4. Relative to men in traditional male positions, men and women in