gender stereotypes in the workplace essay

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces

• Amber L. Stephenson,
• Leanne M. Dzubinski

A look inside the ongoing barriers women face in law, health care, faith-based nonprofits, and higher education.

New research examines gender bias within four industries with more female than male workers — law, higher education, faith-based nonprofits, and health care. Having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an organization is not, by itself, changing women’s experiences of bias. Bias is built into the system and continues to operate even when more women than men are present. Leaders can use these findings to create gender-equitable practices and environments which reduce bias. First, replace competition with cooperation. Second, measure success by goals, not by time spent in the office or online. Third, implement equitable reward structures, and provide remote and flexible work with autonomy. Finally, increase transparency in decision making.

It’s been thought that once industries achieve gender balance, bias will decrease and gender gaps will close. Sometimes called the “ add women and stir ” approach, people tend to think that having more women present is all that’s needed to promote change. But simply adding women into a workplace does not change the organizational structures and systems that benefit men more than women . Our new research (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Personnel Review ) shows gender bias is still prevalent in gender-balanced and female-dominated industries.

• Amy Diehl , PhD is chief information officer at Wilson College and a gender equity researcher and speaker. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield). Find her on LinkedIn at Amy-Diehl , Twitter @amydiehl , and visit her website at amy-diehl.com
• AS Amber L. Stephenson , PhD is an associate professor of management and director of healthcare management programs in the David D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson University. Her research focuses on the healthcare workforce, how professional identity influences attitudes and behaviors, and how women leaders experience gender bias.
• LD Leanne M. Dzubinski , PhD is acting dean of the Cook School of Intercultural Studies and associate professor of intercultural education at Biola University, and a prominent researcher on women in leadership. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield).

Partner Center

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

Women make up more than half of the labor force in the United States and earn almost 60 percent of advanced degrees, yet they bring home less pay and fill fewer seats in the C-suite than men, particularly in male-dominated professions like finance and technology.

This gender gap is due in part to “occupational sorting,” with men choosing careers that pay higher wages than women do, labor economists say. For example, women represent only 26 percent of US workers employed in computer and math jobs, according to the Department of Labor.

New research identifies one reason women might be shying away from certain professions: They lack confidence in their ability to compete in fields that men are stereotypically believed to perform more strongly in, such as science, math, and technology.

Women are also more reluctant to share their ideas in group discussions on these subjects. And even when they have talent—and are actually told they are high-achievers in these subjects—women are more likely than men to shrug off the praise and lowball their own abilities.

This weak self-confidence may hold some women back as they count themselves out of pursuing prestigious roles in professions they believe they won’t excel in, despite having the skills to succeed, says Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Katherine B. Coffman .

“Our beliefs about ourselves are important in shaping all kinds of important decisions, such as what colleges we apply to, which career paths we choose, and whether we are willing to contribute ideas in the workplace or try to compete for a promotion,” Coffman says. “If talented women in STEM aren’t confident, they might not even look at those fields in the first place. It’s all about how good we think we are, especially when we ask ourselves, ‘What does it make sense for me to pursue?’”

Coffman has recently co-written an article in the American Economic Review as well as two working papers, all aimed at studying men’s and women’s beliefs about their own abilities.

“Women are more likely than men to shrug off the praise and lowball their own abilities.”

What she found, in essence, is that gender stereotypes distort our views of both ourselves and others—and that may be especially troubling for women, since buying into those stereotypes could be creating a bleak self-image that is setting them back professionally.

Here’s a snapshot of findings from all three research studies:

Women are less confident than men in certain subjects, like math

In a study for the journal article Beliefs about Gender , Coffman and her colleagues asked participants to answer multiple-choice trivia questions in several categories that women are perceived to have a better handle on, like the Kardashians, Disney movies, cooking, art and literature, and verbal skills. Then they were quizzed in categories considered favorable for men, such as business, math, videogames, cars, and sports.

Respondents were asked to estimate how many questions they answered correctly on tests, and to guess the performance of a random partner whose gender was revealed. Both men and women exaggerated the actual gender performance gaps on average, overstating the male advantage in male-typed domains as well as overstating the female advantage in female-typed questions. And in predicting their own abilities, women had much less confidence in their scores on the tests they believed men had an advantage in.

“Gender stereotypes determine people’s beliefs about themselves and others,” Coffman says. “If I take a woman who has the exact same ability in two different categories—verbal and math—just the fact that there’s an average male advantage in math shapes her belief that her own ability in math is lower.”

Women discount positive feedback about their abilities

In an experiment for Coffman’s working paper Stereotypes and Belief Updating , participants completed a timed test of cognitive ability in five areas: general science, arithmetic reasoning, math knowledge, mechanical comprehension, and assembling objects. They were asked to guess their total number of correct answers, as well as how their performance compared to others. A woman who actually had the same score as a man estimated her score to be 0.58 points lower, a statistically significant gap. Even more surprising, even after participants were provided with feedback about how they performed, this gender gap in how well they perceived they did continued.

In a second study participants were asked to guess how they performed on a test in a randomly assigned subject matter and to predict their own rank relative to others completing the same test. The researchers then provided participants with feedback about their performance. They found that both men and women discounted good news about their scores in subjects that their gender was perceived to have more trouble with.

Stereotypes play on our minds so strongly that it becomes tougher to convince people of their talent in fields where they believe their gender is weak, Coffman says.

“A policy prescription to correct a confidence gap in women might be: Let’s find talented women and tell them, ‘Hey, you’re good at math. You got a really good score on this math test,'" she says. “But our results suggest that this feedback is less effective in closing the gender gap than we might hope. It’s harder than we thought to convince women in male-typed fields that they’ve performed well in these fields.”

It’s unclear whether women would feel better about their abilities if they received repeated rounds of positive feedback, rather than one piece of good news. “I’d be interested to find out if the gender bias gets smaller over time, once a woman has heard that she’s good at math over and over again,” Coffman says. “You might have to encourage women a few times if you want to close these gaps.”

"Our work suggests a need for structuring group decision-making in a way that assures the most talented members both volunteer and are recognized for their contributions, despite gender stereotypes.”

It's important to note, Coffman says, that these studies also show that men have less confidence than women in their ability to shine in fields dominated by women. “It’s not that women are simply less confident; what we find consistently is that individuals are less confident in fields that are more stereotypically outside of their gender’s domain,” Coffman says.

Women hold back on expressing ideas on ‘male topics’

In a third paper, Gender Stereotypes in Deliberation and Team Decisions, Coffman and colleagues studied how teams discuss, decide on, and reward ideas in a group.

The research team compared the behavior of two groups that had free-form discussions in response to questions that varied in the amount of “maleness” of the topic. In one group, the gender of each participant was known, and in the other group, the gender of speakers was not identifiable. They found that men and women had the same ability to answer the questions, yet once again, gender stereotypes warped people’s responses.

As the “maleness” of the question increased, women were significantly less likely than men to self-promote their ideas within the group when their gender was known, particularly in cases where only one woman was talking with a bunch of men. But in the groups where gender was unknown, no gender differences were found in terms of how much women and men talked up their ideas or were recognized by others for their input.

The researchers even found that stereotypes seemed to play a role in the way outside evaluators rated the contributions of each group member after reading transcripts of the conversations. Without knowing the gender of speakers, these evaluators were significantly more likely to guess that participants who came across in the transcripts as “warm,” or friendly, were female and that a negative or critical participant was male—even though researchers found no actual differences in how men and women in the group communicated. Male raters also were significantly less likely to believe that speakers who were judged as “competent” were female. In addition, warmer participants, particularly warmer women, were less likely to be rewarded for their input in the discussions.

Speak up for success

To achieve professional success, people must voice opinions and advocate for their ideas while working in decision-making teams, so it’s a problem if women are staying quiet when it comes to male-typed subjects—and if their ideas are appreciated less when they do express them, Coffman says.

“Our work suggests a need for structuring group decision-making in a way that assures the most talented members both volunteer and are recognized for their contributions, despite gender stereotypes,” the paper says.

It’s also important for managers to be aware of how confidence gaps may impact the workplace, particularly in professions long dominated by men, and to realize that women may need extra encouragement to express their ideas or to throw their hat in the ring for a promotion, Coffman says.

“I would encourage business leaders to think about how [workers’ confidence levels] impact the processes in their organizations,” Coffman says. “I would say providing extra feedback is a good start. If you as an employer see talent somewhere, reaching out to make sure the person is encouraged, recognized, and rewarded—not just once, but repeatedly—could be a helpful thing to do.”

With this new data on gender stereotyping, Coffman and her colleagues hope their work will help inform future research to piece together answers to some puzzling questions, like why men and women alike believe that men will perform better than women in some domains and what interventions can be considered to close this gender gap in self-confidence.

“Stereotypes are pervasive, widely-held views that shape beliefs about our own and others’ abilities, likely from a very young age,” Coffman says. “Until we can change these stereotypes, it’s essential to think about how we can better inoculate individuals from biases induced by stereotypes, helping people to pursue fulfilling careers in the areas where their passions and talents lie.”

Dina Gerdeman is senior editor at Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.

Image: Willbrasil21

Related Reading:

Women Receive Harsher Punishment at Work Than Men Sponsorship Programs Could Actually Widen the Gender Gap Gender-Diverse Companies Thrive Only Where Diversity is Embraced

Related reading from the Working Knowledge Archives

Women at Work

What do you think of this research?

How much intuition goes into your own decision making? Share your insights below.

• 28 May 2024
• In Practice

Job Search Advice for a Tough Market: Think Broadly and Stay Flexible

• 06 May 2024
• Research & Ideas

The Critical Minutes After a Virtual Meeting That Can Build Up or Tear Down Teams

• 21 May 2024

What the Rise of Far-Right Politics Says About the Economy in an Election Year

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• 17 May 2017

Minorities Who 'Whiten' Job Resumes Get More Interviews

• Equality and Inequality
• Organizational Culture
• Groups and Teams
• Prejudice and Bias

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Women in the Workplace 2023

Women in the Workplace

This is the ninth year of the Women in the Workplace report. Conducted in partnership with LeanIn.Org , this effort is the largest study of women in corporate America and Canada. This year, we collected information from 276 participating organizations employing more than ten million people. At these organizations, we surveyed more than 27,000 employees and 270 senior HR leaders, who shared insights on their policies and practices. The report provides an intersectional look at the specific biases and barriers faced by Asian, Black, Latina, and LGBTQ+ women and women with disabilities.

About the authors

This year’s research reveals some hard-fought gains at the top, with women’s representation in the C-suite at the highest it has ever been. However, with lagging progress in the middle of the pipeline—and a persistent underrepresentation of women of color 1 Women of color include women who are Asian, Black, Latina, Middle Eastern, mixed race, Native American/American Indian/Indigenous/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Due to small sample sizes for other racial and ethnic groups, reported findings on individual racial and ethnic groups are restricted to Asian women, Black women, and Latinas. —true parity remains painfully out of reach.

The survey debunks four myths about women’s workplace experiences  and career advancement. A few of these myths cover old ground, but given the notable lack of progress, they warrant repeating. These include women’s career ambitions, the greatest barrier to their ascent to senior leadership, the effect and extent of microaggressions in the workplace, and women’s appetite for flexible work. We hope highlighting these myths will help companies find a path forward that casts aside outdated thinking once and for all and accelerates progress for women.

The rest of this article summarizes the main findings from the Women in the Workplace 2023 report and provides clear solutions that organizations can implement to make meaningful progress toward gender equality.

State of the pipeline

Over the past nine years, women—and especially women of color—have remained underrepresented across the corporate pipeline (Exhibit 1). However, we see a growing bright spot in senior leadership. Since 2015, the number of women in the C-suite has increased from 17 to 28 percent, and the representation of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has also improved significantly.

These hard-earned gains are encouraging yet fragile: slow progress for women at the manager and director levels—representation has grown only three and four percentage points, respectively—creates a weak middle in the pipeline for employees who represent the vast majority of women in corporate America. And the “Great Breakup” trend we discovered in last year’s survey  continues for women at the director level, the group next in line for senior-leadership positions. That is, director-level women are leaving at a higher rate than in past years—and at a notably higher rate than men at the same level. As a result of these two dynamics, there are fewer women in line for top positions.

To view previous reports, please visit the Women in the Workplace archive

Moreover, progress for women of color is lagging behind their peers’ progress. At nearly every step in the pipeline, the representation of women of color falls relative to White women and men of the same race and ethnicity. Until companies address this inequity head-on, women of color will remain severely underrepresented in leadership positions—and mostly absent from the C-suite.

“It’s disheartening to be part of an organization for as many years as I have been and still not see a person like me in senior leadership. Until I see somebody like me in the C-suite, I’m never going to really feel like I belong.”

—Latina, manager, former executive director

Four myths about the state of women at work

This year’s survey reveals the truth about four common myths related to women in the workplace.

Myth: Women are becoming less ambitious Reality: Women are more ambitious than before the pandemic—and flexibility is fueling that ambition

At every stage of the pipeline, women are as committed to their careers and as interested in being promoted as men. Women and men at the director level—when the C-suite is in closer view—are also equally interested in senior-leadership roles. And young women are especially ambitious. Nine in ten women under the age of 30 want to be promoted to the next level, and three in four aspire to become senior leaders.

Women represent roughly one in four C-suite leaders, and women of color just one in 16.

Moreover, the pandemic and increased flexibility did not dampen women’s ambitions. Roughly 80 percent of women want to be promoted to the next level, compared with 70 percent in 2019. And the same holds true for men. Women of color are even more ambitious than White women: 88 percent want to be promoted to the next level. Flexibility is allowing women to pursue their ambitions: overall, one in five women say flexibility has helped them stay in their job or avoid reducing their hours. A large number of women who work hybrid or remotely point to feeling less fatigued and burned out as a primary benefit. And a majority of women report having more focused time to get their work done when they work remotely.

The pandemic showed women that a new model of balancing work and life was possible. Now, few want to return to the way things were. Most women are taking more steps to prioritize their personal lives—but at no cost to their ambition. They remain just as committed to their careers and just as interested in advancing as women who aren’t taking more steps. These women are defying the outdated notion that work and life are incompatible, and that one comes at the expense of the other.

Myth: The biggest barrier to women’s advancement is the ‘glass ceiling’ Reality: The ‘broken rung’ is the greatest obstacle women face on the path to senior leadership

For the ninth consecutive year, women face their biggest hurdle at the first critical step up to manager. This year, for every 100 men promoted from entry level to manager, 87 women were promoted (Exhibit 2). And this gap is trending the wrong way for women of color: this year, 73 women of color were promoted to manager for every 100 men, down from 82 women of color last year. As a result of this “broken rung,” women fall behind and can’t catch up.

Progress for early-career Black women remains the furthest behind. After rising in 2020 and 2021 to a high of 96 Black women promoted for every 100 men—likely because of heightened focus across corporate America—Black women’s promotion rates have fallen to 2018 levels, with only 54 Black women promoted for every 100 men this year.

While companies are modestly increasing women’s representation at the top, doing so without addressing the broken rung offers only a temporary stopgap. Because of the gender disparity in early promotions, men end up holding 60 percent of manager-level positions in a typical company, while women occupy 40 percent. Since men significantly outnumber women, there are fewer women to promote to senior managers, and the number of women decreases at every subsequent level.

Myth: Microaggressions have a ‘micro’ impact Reality: Microaggressions have a large and lasting impact on women

Microaggressions are a form of everyday discrimination that is often rooted in bias. They include comments and actions—even subtle ones that are not overtly harmful—that demean or dismiss someone based on their gender, race, or other aspects of their identity. They signal disrespect, cause acute stress, and can negatively impact women’s careers and health.

Years of data show that women experience microaggressions at a significantly higher rate than men: they are twice as likely to be mistaken for someone junior and hear comments on their emotional state (Exhibit 3). For women with traditionally marginalized identities, these slights happen more often and are even more demeaning. As just one example, Asian and Black women are seven times more likely than White women to be confused with someone of the same race and ethnicity.

As a result, the workplace is a mental minefield for many women, particularly those with traditionally marginalized identities. Women who experience microaggressions are much less likely to feel psychologically safe, which makes it harder to take risks, propose new ideas, or raise concerns. The stakes feel just too high. On top of this, 78 percent of women who face microaggressions self-shield at work, or adjust the way they look or act in an effort to protect themselves. For example, many women code-switch—or tone down what they say or do—to try to blend in and avoid a negative reaction at work. Black women are more than twice as likely as women overall to code-switch. And LGBTQ+ women are 2.5 times as likely to feel pressure to change their appearance to be perceived as more professional. The stress caused by these dynamics cuts deep.

Women who experience microaggressions—and self-shield to deflect them—are three times more likely to think about quitting their jobs and four times more likely to almost always be burned out. By leaving microaggressions unchecked, companies miss out on everything women have to offer and risk losing talented employees.

“It’s like I have to act extra happy so I’m not looked at as bitter because I’m a Black woman. And a disabled Black woman at that. If someone says something offensive to me, I have to think about how to respond in a way that does not make me seem like an angry Black woman.”

—Black woman with a physical disability, entry-level role

Myth: It’s mostly women who want—and benefit from—flexible work Reality: Men and women see flexibility as a ‘top 3’ employee benefit and critical to their company’s success

Most employees say that opportunities to work remotely and have control over their schedules are top company benefits, second only to healthcare (Exhibit 4). Workplace flexibility even ranks above tried-and-true benefits such as parental leave and childcare.

As workplace flexibility transforms from a nice-to-have for some employees to a crucial benefit for most, women continue to value it more. This is likely because they still carry out a disproportionate amount of childcare and household work. Indeed, 38 percent of mothers with young children say that without workplace flexibility, they would have had to leave their company or reduce their work hours.

But it’s not just women or mothers who benefit: hybrid and remote work are delivering important benefits to most employees. Most women and men point to better work–life balance as a primary benefit of hybrid and remote work, and a majority cite less fatigue and burnout (Exhibit 5). And research shows that good work–life balance and low burnout are key to organizational success. Moreover, 83 percent of employees cite the ability to work more efficiently and productively as a primary benefit of working remotely. However, it’s worth noting companies see this differently: only half of HR leaders say employee productivity is a primary benefit of working remotely.

For women, hybrid or remote work is about a lot more than flexibility. When women work remotely, they face fewer microaggressions and have higher levels of psychological safety.

Employees who work on-site also see tangible benefits. A majority point to an easier time collaborating and a stronger personal connection to coworkers as the biggest benefits of working on-site—two factors central to employee well-being and effectiveness. However, the culture of on-site work may be falling short. While 77 percent of companies believe a strong organizational culture is a key benefit of on-site work, most employees disagree: only 39 percent of men and 34 percent of women who work on-site say a key benefit is feeling more connected to their organization’s culture.

Not to mention that men benefit disproportionately from on-site work: compared with women who work on-site, men are seven to nine percentage points more likely to be “in the know,” receive the mentorship and sponsorships they need, and have their accomplishments noticed and rewarded.

A majority of organizations have started to formalize their return-to-office policies, motivated by the perceived benefits of on-site work (Exhibit 6). As they do so, they will need to work to ensure everyone can equally reap the benefits of on-site work.

Recommendations for companies

As companies work to support and advance women, they should focus on five core areas:

• tracking outcomes for women’s representation
• empowering managers to be effective people leaders
• addressing microaggressions head-on
• unlocking the full potential of flexible work
• fixing the broken rung, once and for all

Sixty percent of companies have increased their financial and staffing investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion over the past year. And nearly three in four HR leaders say DEI is critical to their companies’ future success.

1. Track outcomes to improve women’s experience and progression

Tracking outcomes is critical to any successful business initiative. Most companies do this consistently when it comes to achieving their financial objectives, but few apply the same rigor to women’s advancement. Here are three steps to get started:

Measure employees’ outcomes and experiences—and use the data to fix trouble spots. Outcomes for drivers of women’s advancement include hiring, promotions, and attrition. Visibility into other metrics—such as participation in career development programs, performance ratings, and employee sentiments—that influence career progression is also important, and data should be collected with appropriate data privacy protections in place. Then, it’s critically important that companies mine their data for insights that will improve women’s experiences and create equal opportunities for advancement. Ultimately, data tracking is only valuable if it leads to organizational change.

Take an intersectional approach to outcome tracking. Tracking metrics by race and gender combined should be table stakes. Yet, even now, fewer than half of companies do this, and far fewer track data by other self-reported identifiers, such as LGBTQ+ identity. Without this level of visibility, the experiences and career progression of women with traditionally marginalized identities can go overlooked.

Share internal goals and metrics with employees. Awareness is a valuable tool for driving change—when employees are able to see opportunities and challenges, they’re more invested in being part of the solution. In addition, transparency with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals and metrics can send a powerful signal to employees with traditionally marginalized identities that they are supported within the organization.

2. Support and reward managers as key drivers of organizational change

Managers are on the front lines of employees’ experiences and central to driving organizational change. As companies more deeply invest in the culture of work, managers play an increasingly critical role in fostering DEI, ensuring employee well-being, and navigating the shift to flexible work. These are all important business priorities, but managers do not always get the direction and support they need to deliver on them. Here are three steps to get started:

Clarify managers’ priorities and reward results. Companies need to explicitly communicate to managers what is core to their roles and motivate them to take action. The most effective way to do this is to include responsibilities like career development, DEI, and employee well-being in managers’ job descriptions and performance reviews. Relatively few companies evaluate managers on metrics linked to people management. For example, although 61 percent of companies point to DEI as a top manager capability, only 28 percent of people managers say their company recognizes DEI in performance reviews. This discrepancy may partially explain why not enough employees say their manager treats DEI as a priority.

Equip managers with the skills they need to be successful. To effectively manage the new demands being placed on them, managers need ongoing education. This includes repeated, relevant, and high-quality training and nudges that emphasize specific examples of core concepts, as well as concrete actions that managers can incorporate into their daily practices. Companies should adopt an “often and varied” approach to training and upskilling and create regular opportunities for coaching so that managers can continue to build the awareness and capabilities they need to be effective.

Make sure managers have the time and support to get it right. It requires significant intentionality and follow-through to be a good people and culture leader, and this is particularly true when it comes to fostering DEI. Companies need to make sure their managers have the time and resources to do these aspects of their job well. Additionally, companies should put policies and systems in place to make managers’ jobs easier.

3. Take steps to put an end to microaggressions

Microaggressions are pervasive, harmful to the employees who experience them, and result in missed ideas and lost talent. Companies need to tackle microaggressions head-on. Here are three steps to get started:

Make clear that microaggressions are not acceptable. To raise employee awareness and set the right tone, it’s crucial that senior leaders communicate that microaggressions and disrespectful behavior of any kind are not welcome. Companies can help with this by developing a code of conduct that articulates what supportive and respectful behavior looks like—as well as what’s unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

Teach employees to avoid and challenge microaggressions. Employees often don’t recognize microaggressions, let alone know what to say or do to be helpful. That’s why it’s so important that companies have employees participate in high-quality bias and allyship training and receive periodic refreshers to keep key learnings top of mind.

Create a culture where it’s normal to surface microaggressions. It’s important for companies to foster a culture that encourages employees to speak up when they see microaggressions or other disrespectful behavior. Although these conversations can be difficult, they often lead to valuable learning and growth. Senior leaders can play an important role in modeling that it is safe to surface and discuss these behaviors.

4. Finetune flexible working models

The past few years have seen a transformation in how we work. Flexibility is now the norm in most companies; the next step is unlocking its full potential and bringing out the best of the benefits that different work arrangements have to offer. Here are three steps to get started:

Establish clear expectations and norms around working flexibly. Without this clarity, employees may have very different and conflicting interpretations of what’s expected of them. It starts with redefining the work best done in person, versus remotely, and injecting flexibility into the work model to meet personal demands. As part of this process, companies need to find the right balance between setting organization-wide guidelines and allowing managers to work with their teams to determine an approach that unlocks benefits for men and women equally.

Measure the impact of new initiatives to support flexibility and adjust them as needed. The last thing companies want to do is fly in the dark as they navigate the transition to flexible work. As organizations roll out new working models and programs to support flexibility, they should carefully track what’s working, and what’s not, and adjust their approach accordingly—a test-and-learn mentality and a spirit of co-creation with employees are critical to getting these changes right.

Few companies currently track outcomes across work arrangements. For example, only 30 percent have tracked the impact of their return-to-office policies on key DEI outcomes.

Put safeguards in place to ensure a level playing field across work arrangements. Companies should take steps to ensure that employees aren’t penalized for working flexibly. This includes putting systems in place to make sure that employees are evaluated fairly, such as redesigning performance reviews to focus on results rather than when and where work gets done. Managers should also be equipped to be part of the solution. This requires educating managers on proximity bias. Managers need to ensure their team members get equal recognition for their contributions and equal opportunities to advance regardless of working model.

5. Fix the broken rung for women, with a focus on women of color

Fixing the broken rung is a tangible, achievable goal and will set off a positive chain reaction across the pipeline. After nine years of very little progress, there is no excuse for companies failing to take action. Here are three steps to get started:

Track inputs and outcomes. To uncover inequities in the promotions process, companies need to track who is put up for and who receives promotions—by race and gender combined. Tracking with this intersectional lens enables employers to identify and address the obstacles faced by women of color, and companies can use these data points to identify otherwise invisible gaps and refine their promotion processes.

Work to de-bias performance reviews and promotions. Leaders should put safeguards in place to ensure that evaluation criteria are applied fairly and bias doesn’t creep into decision making. Companies can take these actions:

• Send “bias” reminders before performance evaluations and promotion cycles, explaining how common biases can impact reviewers’ assessments.
• Appoint a “bias monitor” to keep performance evaluations and promotions discussions focused on the core criteria for the job and surface potentially biased decision making.
• Have reviewers explain the rationale behind their performance evaluations and promotion recommendations. When individuals have to justify their decisions, they are less likely to make snap judgments or rely on gut feelings, which are prone to bias.

Invest in career advancement for women of color. Companies should make sure their career development programs address the distinct biases and barriers that women of color experience. Yet only a fraction of companies tailor career program content for women of color. And given that women of color tend to get less career advice and have less access to senior leaders, formal mentorship and sponsorship programs can be particularly impactful. It’s also important that companies track the outcomes of their career development programs with an intersectional lens to ensure they are having the intended impact and not inadvertently perpetuating inequitable outcomes.

Practices of top-performing companies

Companies with strong women’s representation across the pipeline are more likely to have certain practices in place. The following data are based on an analysis of top performers—companies that have a higher representation of women and women of color than their industry peers (Exhibit 7).

This year’s survey brings to light important realities about women’s experience in the workplace today. Women, and particularly women of color, continue to lose the most ground in middle management, and microaggressions have a significant and enduring effect on many women—especially those with traditionally marginalized identities. Even still, women are as ambitious as ever, and flexibility is contributing to this, allowing all workers to be more productive while also achieving more balance in their lives. These insights can provide a backdrop for senior leaders as they plan for the future of their organizations.

Emily Field is a partner in McKinsey’s Seattle office; Alexis Krivkovich and Lareina Yee are senior partners in the Bay Area office, where Nicole Robinson is an associate partner; Sandra Kügele is a consultant in the Washington, D.C., office.

The authors wish to thank Zoha Bharwani, Quentin Bolton, Sara Callander, Katie Cox, Ping Chin, Robyn Freeman, James Gannon, Jenn Gao, Mar Grech, Alexis Howard, Isabelle Hughes, Sara Kaplan, Ananya Karanam, Sophia Lam, Nina Li, Steven Lee, Anthea Lyu, Tess Mandoli, Abena Mensah, Laura Padula, David Pinski, Jane Qu, Charlie Rixey, Sara Samir, Chanel Shum, Sofia Tam, Neha Verma, Monne Williams, Lily Xu, Yaz Yazar, and Shirley Zhao for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Women in the workplace: Breaking up to break through

Women in the Workplace 2022

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 11, 2024, review article, open access, women at work: pathways from gender stereotypes to gender bias and discrimination.

• Madeline E. Heilman 1 , Suzette Caleo 2 , and Francesca Manzi 3
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Public Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA 3 Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
• Vol. 11:165-192 (Volume publication date January 2024) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105
• First published as a Review in Advance on December 05, 2023
• Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Despite important advances, gender-based discrimination continues to hinder women's career progress. This review examines the role that gender stereotypes play in promoting gender bias and discrimination. After reviewing what is known about the content of gender stereotypes and examining both their descriptive and prescriptive aspects, we discuss two pathways through which stereotypes result in discrepant work outcomes for women and men. First, we consider how the characterization of women as communal but not agentic conflicts with the perceived demands of many male gender-typed jobs and fields, thus promoting perceptions of women's lack of competence in those areas. Second, we consider how norms about how women should and should not behave cause women to incur penalties when they exhibit counter-stereotypical attributes and behaviors at work. Our review further focuses on the conditions that foster or undercut gender bias and discrimination and uses this knowledge as a foundation for proposing strategies to promote more egalitarian organizational processes.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Abele AE , Hauke N , Peters K , Louvet E , Szymkow A , Duan Y. 2016 . Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Front. Psychol. 7 : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810 [Google Scholar]
• Abele AE , Uchronski M , Suitner C , Wojciszke B 2008 . Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 38 : 1202 – 17 [Google Scholar]
• Allen TD. 2006 . Rewarding good citizens: the relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36 : 120– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Amanatullah ET , Morris MW. 2010 . Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 : 256– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Bailey AH , Dovidio JF , LaFrance M. 2022 . Master” of none: institutional language change linked to reduced gender bias. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 28 : 237– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Bakan D. 1966 . The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion Oxford, UK: Rand McNally [Google Scholar]
• Bauer NM , Harman M , Russell EB. 2022 . Do voters punish ambitious women? Tracking a gendered backlash toward the 2020 democratic presidential contenders. Political Behav . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09805-2 [Google Scholar]
• Beckman CM , Phillips DJ. 2005 . Interorganizational determinants of promotion: client leadership and the attainment of women attorneys. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70 : 678– 701 [Google Scholar]
• Berdahl JL , Cooper M , Glick P , Livingston RW , Williams JC. 2018 . Work as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74 : 422– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Blashill AJ , Powlishta KK. 2009 . The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychol. Men Masc. 10 : 160– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Bosak J , Eagly A , Diekman A , Sczesny S. 2018 . Women and men of the past, present, and future: evidence of dynamic gender stereotypes in Ghana. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49 : 115– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Botelho TL , Abraham M. 2017 . Pursuing quality: how search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process. Adm. Sci. Q. 62 : 698– 730 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Babcock L. 2012 . How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychol. Women Q. 37 : 80– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Babcock L , Lai L. 2007 . Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103 : 84– 103 [Google Scholar]
• Braddy PW , Sturm RE , Atwater L , Taylor SN , McKee RA. 2020 . Gender bias still plagues the workplace: looking at derailment risk and performance with self–other ratings. Group Organ. Manag. 45 : 315– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Breda T , Jouini E , Napp C , Thebault G. 2020 . Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. PNAS 117 : 31063– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Brescoll VL. 2011 . Who takes the floor and why: gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 56 : 622– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Brescoll VL , Okimoto TG , Vial AC. 2018 . You've come a long way…maybe: how moral emotions trigger backlash against women leaders. J. Soc. Issues 74 : 144– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Brescoll VL , Uhlmann EL. 2008 . Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol. Sci. 19 : 268– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Brett JF , Atwater LE , Waldman DA. 2005 . Effective delivery of workplace discipline: Do women have to be more participatory than men?. Group Organ. Manag. 30 : 487– 513 [Google Scholar]
• Brosi P , Spörrle M , Welpe IM , Heilman ME. 2016 . Expressing pride: effects on perceived agency, communality, and stereotype-based gender disparities. J. Appl. Psychol. 101 : 1319– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Broverman IK , Vogel SR , Broverman DM , Clarkson FE , Rosenkrantz PS. 1972 . Sex-role stereotypes: a current appraisal. J. Soc. Issues 28 : 59– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Caleo S. 2016 . Are organizational justice rules gendered? Reactions to men's and women's justice violations. J. Appl. Psychol. 101 : 1422– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Carli LL. 2001 . Gender and social influence. J. Soc. Issues 57 : 725– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Carli LL , Alawa L , Lee Y , Zhao B , Kim E. 2016 . Stereotypes about gender and science: women ≠ scientists. Psychol. Women Q. 40 : 244– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Carli LL , LaFleur SJ , Loeber CC. 1995 . Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68 : 1030– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Casciaro T , Lobo MS. 2005 . Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83 : 92– 99 149 [Google Scholar]
• Castilla EJ. 2015 . Accounting for the gap: a firm study manipulating organizational accountability and transparency in pay decisions. Organ. Sci. 26 : 311– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Catalyst 2022 . Women in management (quick take). Catalyst March 1. https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management/ [Google Scholar]
• Catalyst 2023 . Women CEOs of the S&P 500 (list). Catalyst Febr. 3. https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-ceos-of-the-sp-500/ [Google Scholar]
• Cejka MA , Eagly AH. 1999 . Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 : 413– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Chang EH , Milkman KL. 2020 . Improving decisions that affect gender equality in the workplace. Org. Dynam. 49 : 100709 [Google Scholar]
• Chatman JA , Sharps D , Mishra S , Kray LJ , North MS. 2022 . Agentic but not warm: age-gender interactions and the consequences of stereotype incongruity perceptions for middle-aged professional women. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 173 : 104190 [Google Scholar]
• Chen JJ. 2008 . Ordinary vs. extraordinary: differential reactions to men's and women's prosocial behavior in the workplace . PhD Thesis New York Univ. New York: [Google Scholar]
• Chen-Xia XJ , Betancor V , Chas A , Rodríguez-Pérez A 2022 . Gender inequality in incivility: Everyone should be polite, but it is fine for some of us to be impolite. Front. Psychol. 13 : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.966045 [Google Scholar]
• Cheryan S , Markus HR. 2020 . Masculine defaults: identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychol. Rev. 127 : 1022– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Cheryan S , Plaut VC , Davies PG , Steele CM. 2009 . Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97 : 1045– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Cheryan S , Ziegler SA , Montoya AK , Jiang L. 2017 . Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?. Psychol. Bull. 143 : 1– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Cialdini RB , Trost MR 1998 . Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. The Handbook of Social Psychology 2 ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey 151– 92 New York: McGraw-Hill, 4th ed. [Google Scholar]
• Clabaugh A , Fields L , Duque JF , Brown E. 2023 . Are you advocating for me? Social penalties toward teachers that (dis)confirm gender stereotypes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Soc. Psychol. 163 : 773– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Clark JK , Wegener DT. 2008 . Unpacking outcome dependency: differentiating effects of dependency and outcome desirability on the processing of goal-relevant information. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 : 586– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Correll SJ , Weisshaar KR , Wynn AT , Wehner JD. 2020 . Inside the black box of organizational life: the gendered language of performance assessment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85 : 1022– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Cortina LM. 2008 . Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33 : 55– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Cuddy AJC , Wolf EB , Glick P , Crotty S , Chong J , Norton MI. 2015 . Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 109 : 622– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Danbold F , Bendersky C. 2020 . Balancing professional prototypes increases the valuation of women in male-dominated professions. Organ. Sci. 31 : 119– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Deaux K , Lewis LL. 1983 . Assessment of gender stereotypes: methodology and components. Psychol. Doc. 13 : 1– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Derous E , Ryan AM , Serlie AW. 2015 . Double jeopardy upon resumé screening: when Achmed is less employable than Aïsha. Pers. Psychol. 68 : 659– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Diekman AB , Eagly AH. 2000 . Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 : 1171– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Dray KK , Smith VRE , Kostecki TP , Sabat IE , Thomson CR. 2020 . Moving beyond the gender binary: examining workplace perceptions of nonbinary and transgender employees. Gend. Work Organ. 27 : 1181– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Duehr EE , Bono JE. 2006 . Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?. Pers. Psychol. 59 : 815– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Dwivedi P , Misangyi VF , Joshi A. 2021 . Burnt by the spotlight”: how leadership endorsements impact the longevity of female leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 106 : 1885– 906 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Karau SJ. 2002 . Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109 : 573– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Makhijani MG , Klonsky BG. 1992 . Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111 : 3– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Nater C , Miller DI , Kaufmann M , Sczesny S. 2020 . Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 75 : 301– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Ely RJ , Kimmel M. 2018 . Thoughts on the workplace as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74 : 628– 34 [Google Scholar]
• England P , Levine A , Mishel E. 2020 . Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. PNAS 117 : 6990– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Favero JL , Ilgen DR. 1989 . The effects of ratee prototypicality on rater observation and accuracy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19 : 932– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Fisher AN , Stinson DA , Kalajdzic A. 2019 . Unpacking backlash: individual and contextual moderators of bias against female professors. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41 : 305– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST. 2017 . Prejudices in cultural contexts: shared stereotypes (gender, age) versus variable stereotypes (race, ethnicity, religion). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 : 791– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST , Bersoff DN , Borgida E , Deaux K , Heilman ME. 1991 . Social science research on trial: use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins . Am. Psychol. 46 : 1049– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST , Taylor SE. 1991 . Social Cognition New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
• Gabriel AS , Butts MM , Yuan Z , Rosen RL , Sliter MT. 2018 . Further understanding incivility in the workplace: the effects of gender, agency, and communion. J. Appl. Psychol. 103 : 362– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Galos DR , Coppock A. 2023 . Gender composition predicts gender bias: a meta-reanalysis of hiring discrimination audit experiments. Sci. Adv. 9 : eade7979 [Google Scholar]
• Gaucher D , Friesen J , Kay AC. 2011 . Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101 : 109– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Ghavami N , Peplau LA. 2013 . An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: testing three hypotheses. Psychol. Women Q. 37 : 113– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Gill MJ. 2004 . When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereotyping. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40 : 619– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Goldin C. 2014 . A grand gender convergence: its last chapter. Am. Econ. Rev. 104 : 1091– 119 [Google Scholar]
• Gorman EH. 2005 . Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: evidence from law firms. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70 : 702– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Haines EL , Deaux K , Lofaro N. 2016 . The times they are a-changing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q. 40 : 353– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Hall EV , Hall AV , Galinsky AD , Phillips KW. 2019 . MOSAIC: a model of stereotyping through associated and intersectional categories. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44 : 643– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Haynes MC , Lawrence JS. 2012 . Who's to blame? Attributions of blame in unsuccessful mixed-sex work teams. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 : 558– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME. 1983 . Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 5 : 269– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME. 2001 . Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57 : 657– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME. 2012 . Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32 : 113– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Blader SL. 2001 . Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: the effects of gender rarity. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 : 188– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Block CJ , Martell RF. 1995 . Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 10 : 237– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Caleo S. 2018 . Combatting gender discrimination: a lack of fit framework. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21 : 725– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Chen JJ. 2005 . Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 : 431– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Haynes MC. 2005 . No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 : 905– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Haynes MC 2008 . Subjectivity in the appraisal process: a facilitator of gender bias in work settings. Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom E Borgida, ST Fiske 127– 55 Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Manzi F 2022 . Revisiting Schein's think manager-think male study. Organisational Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies N Steffens, F Rink, M Ryan 221– 40 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Manzi F , Caleo S. 2019 . Updating impressions: the differential effects of new performance information on evaluations of women and men. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 152 : 105– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Okimoto TG. 2007 . Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 81– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Okimoto TG. 2008 . Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 : 189– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Stopeck MH. 1985 . Attractiveness and corporate success: different causal attributions for males and females. J. Appl. Psychol. 70 : 379– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Wallen AS , Fuchs D , Tamkins MM. 2004 . Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 : 416– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Hentschel T , Heilman ME , Peus CV. 2019 . The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men's and women's characterizations of others and themselves. Front. Psychol. 10 : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011 [Google Scholar]
• Hideg I , Ferris DL. 2016 . The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 111 : 706– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Horvath LK , Sczesny S. 2016 . Reducing women's lack of fit with leadership positions? Effects of the wording of job advertisements. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25 : 316– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Hutson-Comeaux SL , Kelly JR. 2002 . Gender stereotypes of emotional reactions: how we judge an emotion as valid. Sex Roles 47 : 1– 10 [Google Scholar]
• Jirjahn U , Stephan G. 2004 . Gender, piece rates and wages: evidence from matched employer–employee data. Camb. J. Econ. 28 : 683– 704 [Google Scholar]
• Johnson SK , Murphy SE , Zewdie S , Reichard RJ. 2008 . The strong, sensitive type: effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 106 : 39– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Joshi A , Oh S , DesJardine MR. 2022 . A new perspective on gender bias in the upper echelons: why stakeholder variability matters. Acad. Manag. Rev. In press. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0131 [Google Scholar]
• Joshi A , Son J , Roh H. 2015 . When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Acad. Manag. J. 58 : 1516– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Kanter RM. 1977 . Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. Am. J. Sociol. 82 : 965– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Kanze D , Conley MA , Okimoto TG , Phillips DJ , Merluzzi J. 2020 . Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit. Sci. Adv. 6 : eabd7664 [Google Scholar]
• Kim JK , Harold CM , Holtz BC. 2022 . Evaluations of abusive supervisors: the moderating role of the abuser's gender. J. Organ. Behav. 43 : 465– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Klein FB , Hill AD , Hammond R , Stice-Lusvardi R. 2021 . The gender equity gap: a multistudy investigation of within-job inequality in equity-based awards. J. Appl. Psychol. 106 : 734– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Koch AJ , D'Mello SD , Sackett PR 2015 . A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 : 128– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Koenig AM , Eagly AH. 2014 . Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups' roles shape stereotypes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 107 : 371– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Koenig AM , Eagly AH , Mitchell AA , Ristikari T. 2011 . Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychol. Bull. 137 : 616– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Kunda Z , Sinclair L , Griffin D. 1997 . Equal ratings but separate meanings: stereotypes and the construal of traits. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72 : 720– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Lawson MA , Martin AE , Huda I , Matz SC. 2022 . Hiring women into senior leadership positions is associated with a reduction in gender stereotypes in organizational language. PNAS 119 : e2026443119 [Google Scholar]
• Livingston RW , Rosette AS , Washington EF. 2012 . Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychol. Sci. 23 : 354– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Lyness KS , Heilman ME. 2006 . When fit is fundamental: performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 : 777– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Lyness KS , Judiesch MK. 1999 . Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into management positions?. J. Vocat. Behav. 54 : 158– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Ma A , Rosette AS , Koval CZ. 2022 . Reconciling female agentic advantage and disadvantage with the CADDIS measure of agency. J. Appl. Psychol. 107 : 2115– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Madera JM , Hebl MR , Martin RC. 2009 . Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 : 1591– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Mai KM , Ellis APJ , Welsh DT. 2020 . How perpetrator gender influences reactions to premeditated versus impulsive unethical behavior: a role congruity approach. J Bus. Ethics 166 : 489– 503 [Google Scholar]
• Manzi F , Heilman ME. 2021 . Breaking the glass ceiling: for one and all?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 120 : 257– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Mero NP , Motowidlo SJ , Anna AL. 2003 . Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33 : 2493– 514 [Google Scholar]
• Milkman KL , Akinola M , Chugh D. 2012 . Temporal distance and discrimination: an audit study in academia. Psychol. Sci. 23 : 710– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Miller DI , Eagly AH , Linn MC. 2015 . Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: evidence from 66 nations. J. Educ. Psychol. 107 : 631– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Morgenroth T , Ryan MK. 2021 . The effects of gender trouble: an integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16 : 1113– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Moscatelli S , Menegatti M , Ellemers N , Mariani MG , Rubini M. 2020 . Men should be competent, women should have it all: multiple criteria in the evaluation of female job candidates. Sex Roles 83 : 269– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Moss-Racusin CA , Dovidio JF , Brescoll VL , Graham MJ , Handelsman J. 2012 . Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109 : 16474– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Nandkeolyar AK , Bagger J , Ekkirala S. 2022 . Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't: the interactive effects of gender and agreeableness on performance evaluation. J. Bus. Res. 143 : 62– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Nater C , Heilman ME , Sczesny S. 2023 . Footsteps I would like to follow? How gender quotas affect the acceptance of women leaders as role models and inspirations for leadership. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 53 : 129– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Obioma IF , Hentschel T , Hernandez Bark AS. 2022 . Gender stereotypes and self-characterizations in Germany and Nigeria: a cross-cultural comparison. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 52 : 764– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Okimoto TG , Brescoll VL. 2010 . The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36 : 923– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Paustian-Underdahl SC , Walker LS. 2016 . Revisiting the beauty is beastly effect: examining when and why sex and attractiveness impact hiring judgments. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27 : 1034– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Paustian-Underdahl SC , Walker LS , Woehr DJ. 2014 . Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: a meta-analysis of contextual moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 99 : 1129– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Pazy A , Oron I. 2001 . Sex proportion and performance evaluation among high-ranking military officers. J. Organ. Behav. 22 : 689– 702 [Google Scholar]
• Petsko CD , Rosette AS , Bodenhausen GV. 2022 . Through the looking glass: a lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 123 : 763– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Pew Res. Cent. 2019 . 8 Facts about American dads. Pew Research Center June 12. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/ [Google Scholar]
• Pew Res. Cent. 2023 . In a growing share of U.S. marriages, husbands and wives earn about the same. Pew Research Center April 13. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/ [Google Scholar]
• Plant EA , Hyde JS , Keltner D , Devine PG. 2000 . The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychol. Women. Q. 24 : 81– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Prentice DA , Carranza E. 2002 . What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol. Women. Q. 26 : 269– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 1989 .
• Quadlin N. 2018 . The mark of a woman's record: gender and academic performance in hiring. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83 : 331– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Ragins BR , Winkel DE. 2011 . Gender, emotion and power in work relationships. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21 : 377– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Rosette AS , Tost LP. 2010 . Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 : 221– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Ross MB , Glennon BM , Murciano-Goroff R , Berkes EG , Weinberg BA , Lane JI. 2022 . Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 608 : 135– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Rudman LA. 1998 . Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74 : 629– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Rudman LA , Fairchild K. 2004 . Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87 : 157– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Rudman LA , Glick P. 2001 . Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57 : 743– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Sackett PR , DuBois CL , Noe AW. 1991 . Tokenism in performance evaluation: the effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 76 : 263– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Sandberg S. 2013 . Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead New York: Alfred A. Knopf [Google Scholar]
• Sarsons H. 2017 . Recognition for group work: gender differences in academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 107 : 141– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Schaumberg RL , Flynn FJ. 2017 . Self-reliance: a gender perspective on its relationship to communality and leadership evaluations. Acad. Manag. J. 60 : 1859– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Schein VE. 1973 . The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 57 : 95– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Schein VE , Mueller R , Lituchy T , Liu J. 1996 . Think manager—think male: a global phenomenon?. J. Organ. Behav. 17 : 33– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Scholten L , van Knippenberg D , Nijstad BA , De Dreu CKW. 2007 . Motivated information processing and group decision-making: effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43 : 539– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Sczesny S , Formanowicz M , Moser F. 2016 . Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination?. Front. Psychol. 7 : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025 [Google Scholar]
• Sesko AK , Biernat M. 2010 . Prototypes of race and gender: the invisibility of Black women. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46 : 356– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Spence JT , Helmreich RL , Holahan CK. 1979 . Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37 : 1673– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Storage D , Charlesworth TES , Banaji MR , Cimpian A. 2020 . Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 90 : 104020 [Google Scholar]
• Tetlock PE. 1983 . Accountability and complexity of thought. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45 : 74– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Toneva Y , Heilman ME , Pierre G. 2020 . Choice or circumstance: When are women penalized for their success?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 50 : 651– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Uhlmann EL , Cohen GL. 2005 . Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychol. Sci. 16 : 474– 80 [Google Scholar]
• UN Women 2023 . Facts and figures: women's leadership and political participation. UN Women Sept. 18. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures [Google Scholar]
• UNDP (United Nations Dev. Programme) 2020 . 2020 Gender Social Norms Index (GSNI): Tackling Social Norms: A Game Changer for Gender Inequalities . New York: UNDP [Google Scholar]
• US Bur. Labor Stat 2022 . Labor force statistics from the current population survey Data, US Bur. Labor Stat. Washington, DC: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm [Google Scholar]
• US Dep. Labor. 2021 . Most common occupations for women in the labor force Data, US Dep. Labor Washington, DC: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations/most-common-occupations-women-labor-force [Google Scholar]
• Viswesvaran C , Ones DS , Schmidt FL. 1996 . Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 : 557– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Walfisch T , Van Dijk D , Kark R. 2013 . Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace. . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43 : 1446– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Williams MJ , Tiedens LZ. 2016 . The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychol. Bull. 142 : 165– 97 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences, self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science, burnout and work engagement: the jd–r approach, psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct, employee voice and silence, psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach, how technology is changing work and organizations, research on workplace creativity: a review and redirection, the psychology of entrepreneurship, abusive supervision.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism

Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in organizational structures, processes, and practices. For women, some of the most harmful gender inequalities are enacted within human resources (HRs) practices. This is because HR practices (i.e., policies, decision-making, and their enactment) affect the hiring, training, pay, and promotion of women. We propose a model of gender discrimination in HR that emphasizes the reciprocal nature of gender inequalities within organizations. We suggest that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and in the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices. This includes leadership, structure, strategy, culture, organizational climate, as well as HR policies. In addition, organizational decision makers’ levels of sexism can affect their likelihood of making gender biased HR-related decisions and/or behaving in a sexist manner while enacting HR practices. Importantly, institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices play a pre-eminent role because not only do they affect HR practices, they also provide a socializing context for organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. Although we portray gender inequality as a self-reinforcing system that can perpetuate discrimination, important levers for reducing discrimination are identified.

Introduction

The workplace has sometimes been referred to as an inhospitable place for women due to the multiple forms of gender inequalities present (e.g., Abrams, 1991 ). Some examples of how workplace discrimination negatively affects women’s earnings and opportunities are the gender wage gap (e.g., Peterson and Morgan, 1995 ), the dearth of women in leadership ( Eagly and Carli, 2007 ), and the longer time required for women (vs. men) to advance in their careers ( Blau and DeVaro, 2007 ). In other words, workplace discrimination contributes to women’s lower socio-economic status. Importantly, such discrimination against women largely can be attributed to human resources (HR) policies and HR-related decision-making. Furthermore, when employees interact with organizational decision makers during HR practices, or when they are told the outcomes of HR-related decisions, they may experience personal discrimination in the form of sexist comments. Both the objective disadvantages of lower pay, status, and opportunities at work, and the subjective experiences of being stigmatized, affect women’s psychological and physical stress, mental and physical health ( Goldenhar et al., 1998 ; Adler et al., 2000 ; Schmader et al., 2008 ; Borrel et al., 2010 ),job satisfaction and organizational commitment ( Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000 ), and ultimately, their performance ( Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001 ).

Within this paper, we delineate the nature of discrimination within HR policies, decisions, and their enactment, as well as explore the causes of such discrimination in the workplace. Our model is shown in Figure ​ Figure1 1 . In the Section “Discrimination in HR Related Practices: HR Policy, Decisions, and their Enactment,” we explain the distinction between HR policy, HR-related decision-making, and HR enactment and their relations to each other. Gender inequalities in HR policy are a form of institutional discrimination. We review evidence of institutional discrimination against women within HR policies set out to determine employee selection, performance evaluations, and promotions. In contrast, discrimination in HR-related decisions and their enactment can result from organizational decision makers’ biased responses: it is a form of personal discrimination. Finally, we provide evidence of personal discrimination against women by organizational decision makers in HR-related decision-making and in the enactment of HR policies.

A model of the root causes of gender discrimination in HR policies, decision-making, and enactment .

In the Section “The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on HR Practices,” we focus on the link between institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices that can lead to personal discrimination in HR practices (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). Inspired by the work of Gelfand et al. (2007) , we propose that organizational structures, processes, and practices (i.e., leadership, structure, strategy, culture, climate, and HR policy) are interrelated and may contribute to discrimination. Accordingly, gender inequalities in each element can affect the others, creating a self-reinforcing system that can perpetuate institutional discrimination throughout the organization and that can lead to discrimination in HR policies, decision-making, and enactment. We also propose that these relations between gender inequalities in the organizational structures, processes, and practices and discrimination in HR practices can be bidirectional (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). Thus, we also review how HR practices can contribute to gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices.

In the Section “The Effect of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism on How Organizational Decision Makers’ Conduct HR Practices,” we delineate the link between organizational decision makers’ levels of sexism and their likelihood of making gender-biased HR-related decisions and/or behaving in a sexist manner when enacting HR policies (e.g., engaging in gender harassment). We focus on two forms of sexist attitudes: hostile and benevolent sexism ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 ). Hostile sexism involves antipathy toward, and negative stereotypes about, agentic women. In contrast, benevolent sexism involves positive but paternalistic views of women as highly communal. Whereas previous research on workplace discrimination has focused on forms of sexism that are hostile in nature, we extend this work by explaining how benevolent sexism, which is more subtle, can also contribute in meaningful yet distinct ways to gender discrimination in HR practices.

In the Section “The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on Organizational Decision Makers’ Levels of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism,” we describe how institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices play a critical role in our model because not only do they affect HR-related decisions and the enactment of HR policies, they also provide a socializing context for organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. In other words, where more institutional discrimination is present, we can expect higher levels of sexism—a third link in our model—which leads to gender bias in HR practices.

In the Section “How to Reduce Gender Discrimination in Organizations,” we discuss how organizations can reduce gender discrimination. We suggest that, to reduce discrimination, organizations should focus on: HR practices, other closely related organizational structures, processes, and practices, and the reduction of organizational decision makers’ level of sexism. Organizations should take such a multifaceted approach because, consistent with our model, gender discrimination is a result of a complex interplay between these factors. Therefore, a focus on only one factor may not be as effective if all the other elements in the model continue to promote gender inequality.

The model we propose for understanding gender inequalities at work is, of course, limited and not intended to be exhaustive. First, we only focus on women’s experience of discrimination. Although men also face discrimination, the focus of this paper is on women because they are more often targets ( Branscombe, 1998 ; Schmitt et al., 2002 ; McLaughlin et al., 2012 ) and discrimination is more psychologically damaging for women than for men ( Barling et al., 1996 ; Schmitt et al., 2002 ). Furthermore, we draw on research from Western, individualistic countries conducted between the mid-1980s to the mid-2010s that might not generalize to other countries or time frames. In addition, this model derives from research that has been conducted primarily in sectors dominated by men. This is because gender discrimination ( Mansfield et al., 1991 ; Welle and Heilman, 2005 ) and harassment ( Mansfield et al., 1991 ; Berdhal, 2007 ) against women occur more in environments dominated by men. Now that we have outlined the sections of the paper and our model, we now turn to delineating how gender discrimination in the workplace can be largely attributed to HR practices.

Discrimination in HR Related Practices: HR Policy, Decisions, and their Enactment

In this section, we explore the nature of gender discrimination in HR practices, which involves HR policies, HR-related decision-making, and their enactment by organizational decision makers. HR is a system of organizational practices aimed at managing employees and ensuring that they are accomplishing organizational goals ( Wright et al., 1994 ). HR functions include: selection, performance evaluation, leadership succession, and training. Depending on the size and history of the organization, HR systems can range from those that are well structured and supported by an entire department, led by HR specialists, to haphazard sets of policies and procedures enacted by managers and supervisors without formal training. HR practices are critically important because they determine the access employees have to valued reward and outcomes within an organization, and can also influence their treatment within an organization ( Levitin et al., 1971 ).

Human resource practices can be broken down into formal HR policy, HR-related decision-making, and the enactment of HR policies and decisions. HR policy codifies practices for personnel functions, performance evaluations, employee relations, and resource planning ( Wright et al., 1994 ). HR-related decision-making occurs when organizational decision makers (i.e., managers, supervisors, or HR personnel) employ HR policy to determine how it will be applied to a particular situation and individual. The enactment of HR involves the personal interactions between organizational decision makers and job candidates or employees when HR policies are applied. Whereas HR policy can reflect institutional discrimination, HR-related decision-making and enactment can reflect personal discrimination by organizational decision makers.

Institutional Discrimination in HR Policy

Human resource policies that are inherently biased against a group of people, regardless of their job-related knowledge, skills, abilities, and performance can be termed institutional discrimination. Institutional discrimination against women can occur in each type of HR policy from the recruitment and selection of an individual into an organization, through his/her role assignments, training, pay, performance evaluations, promotion, and termination. For instance, if women are under-represented in a particular educational program or a particular job type and those credentials or previous job experience are required to be considered for selection, women are being systematically, albeit perhaps not intentionally, discriminated against. In another example, there is gender discrimination if a test is used in the selection battery for which greater gender differences emerge, than those that emerge for job performance ratings ( Hough et al., 2001 ). Thus, institutional discrimination can be present within various aspects of HR selection policy, and can negatively affect women’s work outcomes.

Institutional discrimination against women also occurs in performance evaluations that are used to determine organizational rewards (e.g., compensation), opportunities (e.g., promotion, role assignments), and punishments (e.g., termination). Gender discrimination can be formalized into HR policy if criteria used by organizational decision makers to evaluate job performance systematically favor men over women. For instance, “face time” is a key performance metric that rewards employees who are at the office more than those who are not. Given that women are still the primary caregivers ( Acker, 1990 ; Fuegen et al., 2004 ), women use flexible work arrangements more often than men and, consequently, face career penalties because they score lower on face time ( Glass, 2004 ). Thus, biased criteria in performance evaluation policies can contribute to gender discrimination.

Human resource policies surrounding promotions and opportunities for advancement are another area of concern. In organizations with more formal job ladders that are used to dictate and constrain workers’ promotion opportunities, women are less likely to advance ( Perry et al., 1994 ). This occurs because job ladders tend to be divided by gender, and as such, gender job segregation that is seen at entry-level positions will be strengthened as employees move up their specific ladder with no opportunity to cross into other lines of advancement. Thus, women will lack particular job experiences that are not available within their specific job ladders, making them unqualified for advancement ( De Pater et al., 2010 ).

In sum, institutional discrimination can be present within HR policies set out to determine employee selection, performance evaluations, and promotions. These policies can have significant effects on women’s careers. However, HR policy can only be used to guide HR-related decision-making. In reality, it is organizational decision-makers, that is, managers, supervisors, HR personnel who, guided by policy, must evaluate job candidates or employees and decide how policy will be applied to individuals.

Personal Discrimination in HR-Related Decision-Making

The practice of HR-related decision-making involves social cognition in which others’ competence, potential, and deservingness are assessed by organizational decision makers. Thus, like all forms of social cognition, HR-related decision-making is open to personal biases. HR-related decisions are critically important because they determine women’s pay and opportunities at work (e.g., promotions, training opportunities). Personal discrimination against women by organizational decision makers can occur in each stage of HR-related decision-making regarding recruitment and selection, role assignments, training opportunities, pay, performance evaluation, promotion, and termination.

Studies with varying methodologies show that women face personal discrimination when going through the selection process (e.g., Goldberg, 1968 ; Rosen and Jerdee, 1974 ). Meta-analyses reveal that, when being considered for male-typed (i.e., male dominated, believed-to-be-for-men) jobs, female candidates are evaluated more negatively and recommended for employment less often by study participants, compared with matched male candidates (e.g., Hunter et al., 1982 ; Tosi and Einbender, 1985 ; Olian et al., 1988 ; Davison and Burke, 2000 ). For example, in audit studies, which involve sending ostensibly real applications for job openings while varying the gender of the applicant, female applicants are less likely to be interviewed or called back, compared with male applicants (e.g., McIntyre et al., 1980 ; Firth, 1982 ). In a recent study, male and female biology, chemistry, and physics professors rated an undergraduate science student for a laboratory manager position ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ). The male applicant was rated as significantly more competent and hireable, offered a higher starting salary (about $4000), and offered more career mentoring than the female applicant was. In summary, women face a distinct disadvantage when being considered for male-typed jobs.

There is ample evidence that women experience biased performance evaluations on male-typed tasks. A meta-analysis of experimental studies reveals that women in leadership positions receive lower performance evaluations than matched men; this is amplified when women act in a stereotypically masculine, that is, agentic fashion ( Eagly et al., 1992 ). Further, in masculine domains, women are held to a higher standard of performance than men are. For example, in a study of military cadets, men and women gave their peers lower ratings if they were women, despite having objectively equal qualifications to men ( Boldry et al., 2001 ). Finally, women are evaluated more poorly in situations that involve complex problem solving; in these situations, people are skeptical regarding women’s expertise and discredit expert women’s opinions but give expert men the benefit of the doubt ( Thomas-Hunt and Phillips, 2004 ).

Sometimes particular types of women are more likely to be discriminated against in selection and performance evaluation decisions. Specifically, agentic women, that is, those who behave in an assertive, task-oriented fashion, are rated as less likeable and less hireable than comparable agentic male applicants ( Heilman and Okimoto, 2007 ; Rudman and Phelan, 2008 ; Rudman et al., 2012 ). In addition, there is evidence of discrimination against pregnant women when they apply for jobs ( Hebl et al., 2007 ; Morgan et al., 2013 ). Further, women who are mothers are recommended for promotion less than women who are not mothers or men with or without children ( Heilman and Okimoto, 2008 ). Why might people discriminate specifically against agentic women and pregnant women or mothers, who are seemingly very different? The stereotype content model, accounts for how agentic women, who are perceived to be high in competence and low in warmth, will be discriminated against because of feelings of competition; whereas, pregnant women and mothers, who are seen as low in competence, but high in warmth, will be discriminated against because of a perceived lack of deservingness ( Fiske et al., 1999 , 2002 ; Cuddy et al., 2004 ). Taken together, research has uncovered that different forms of bias toward specific subtypes of women have the same overall effect—bias in selection and performance evaluation decisions.

Women are also likely to receive fewer opportunities at work, compared with men, resulting in their under-representation at higher levels of management and leadership within organizations ( Martell et al., 1996 ; Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). Managers give women fewer challenging roles and fewer training opportunities, compared with men ( King et al., 2012 ; Glick, 2013 ). For instance, female managers ( Lyness and Thompson, 1997 ) and midlevel workers ( De Pater et al., 2010 ) have less access to high-level responsibilities and challenges that are precursors to promotion. Further, men are more likely to be given key leadership assignments in male-dominated fields and in female-dominated fields (e.g., Maume, 1999 ; De Pater et al., 2010 ). This is detrimental given that challenging roles, especially developmental ones, help employees gain important skills needed to excel in their careers ( Spreitzer et al., 1997 ).

Furthermore, managers rate women as having less promotion potential than men ( Roth et al., 2012 ). Given the same level of qualifications, managers are less likely to grant promotions to women, compared with men ( Lazear and Rosen, 1990 ). Thus, men have a faster ascent in organizational hierarchies than women ( Cox and Harquail, 1991 ; Stroh et al., 1992 ; Blau and DeVaro, 2007 ). Even minimal amounts of gender discrimination in promotion decisions for a particular job or level can have large, cumulative effects given the pyramid structure of most hierarchical organizations ( Martell et al., 1996 ; Baxter and Wright, 2000 ). Therefore, discrimination by organizational decision makers results in the under-promotion of women.

Finally, women are underpaid, compared with men. In a comprehensive US study using data from 1983 to 2000, after controlling for human capital factors that could affect wages (e.g., education level, work experience), the researchers found that women were paid 22% less than men ( U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2003 ). Further, within any given occupation, men typically have higher wages than women; this “within-occupation” wage gap is especially prominent in more highly paid occupations ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 ). In a study of over 2000 managers, women were compensated less than men were, even after controlling for a number of human capital factors ( Ostroff and Atwater, 2003 ). Experimental work suggests that personal biases by organizational decision makers contribute to the gender wage gap. When participants are asked to determine starting salaries for matched candidates that differ by gender, they pay men more (e.g., Steinpreis et al., 1999 ; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ). Such biases are consequential because starting salaries determine life-time earnings ( Gerhart and Rynes, 1991 ). In experimental studies, when participants evaluate a man vs. a woman who is matched on job performance, they choose to compensate men more ( Marini, 1989 ; Durden and Gaynor, 1998 ; Lips, 2003 ). Therefore, discrimination in HR-related decision-making by organizational decision makers can contribute to women being paid less than men are.

Taken together, we have shown that there is discrimination against women in decision-making related to HR. These biases from organizational decision makers can occur in each stage of HR-related decision-making and these biased HR decisions have been shown to negatively affect women’s pay and opportunities at work. In the next section, we review how biased HR practices are enacted, which can involve gender harassment.

Personal Discrimination in HR Enactment

By HR enactment, we refer to those situations where current or prospective employees go through HR processes or when they receive news of their outcomes from organizational decision makers regarding HR-related issues. Personal gender discrimination can occur when employees are given sexist messages, by organizational decision makers, related to HR enactment. More specifically, this type of personal gender discrimination is termed gender harassment, and consists of a range of verbal and non-verbal behaviors that convey sexist, insulting, or hostile attitudes about women ( Fitzgerald et al., 1995a , b ). Gender harassment is the most common form of sex-based discrimination ( Fitzgerald et al., 1988 ; Schneider et al., 1997 ). For example, across the military in the United States, 52% of the 9,725 women surveyed reported that they had experienced gender harassment in the last year ( Leskinen et al., 2011 , Study 1). In a random sample of attorneys from a large federal judicial circuit, 32% of the 1,425 women attorneys surveyed had experienced gender harassment in the last 5 years ( Leskinen et al., 2011 , Study 2). When examining women’s experiences of gender harassment, 60% of instances were perpetrated by their supervisor/manager or a person in a leadership role (cf. Crocker and Kalemba, 1999 ; McDonald et al., 2008 ). Thus, personal discrimination in the form of gender harassment is a common behavior; however, is it one that organizational decision makers engage in when enacting HR processes and outcomes?

Although it might seem implausible that organizational decision makers would convey sexist sentiments to women when giving them the news of HR-related decisions, there have been high-profile examples from discrimination lawsuits where this has happened. For example, in a class action lawsuit against Walmart, female workers claimed they were receiving fewer promotions than men despite superior qualifications and records of service. In that case, the district manager was accused of confiding to some of the women who were overlooked for promotions that they were passed over because he was not in favor of women being in upper management positions ( Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 2004/2011 ). In addition, audit studies, wherein matched men and women apply to real jobs, have revealed that alongside discrimination ( McIntyre et al., 1980 ; Firth, 1982 ; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ), women experience verbal gender harassment when applying for sex atypical jobs, such as sexist comments as well as skeptical or discouraging responses from hiring staff ( Neumark, 1996 ). Finally, gender harassment toward women when HR policies are enacted can also take the form of offensive comments and denying women promotions due to pregnancy or the chance of pregnancy. For example, in Moore v. Alabama , an employee was 8 months pregnant and the woman’s supervisor allegedly looked at her belly and said “I was going to make you head of the office, but look at you now” ( Moore v. Alabama State University, 1996 , p. 431; Williams, 2003 ). Thus, organizational decision makers will at times convey sexist sentiments to women when giving them the news of HR-related decisions.

Interestingly, whereas discrimination in HR policy and in HR-related decision-making is extremely difficult to detect ( Crosby et al., 1986 ; Major, 1994 ), gender harassment in HR enactment provides direct cues to recipients that discrimination is occurring. In other words, although women’s lives are negatively affected in concrete ways by discrimination in HR policy and decisions (e.g., not receiving a job, being underpaid), they may not perceive their negative outcomes as due to gender discrimination. Indeed, there is a multitude of evidence that women and other stigmatized group members are loath to make attributions to discrimination ( Crosby, 1984 ; Vorauer and Kumhyr, 2001 ; Stangor et al., 2003 ) and instead are likely to make internal attributions for negative evaluations unless they are certain the evaluator is biased against their group ( Ruggiero and Taylor, 1995 ; Major et al., 2003 ). However, when organizational decision makers engage in gender harassment during HR enactment women should be more likely to interpret HR policy and HR-related decisions as discriminatory.

Now that we have specified the nature of institutional gender discrimination in HR policy and personal discrimination in HR-related decision-making and in HR enactment, we turn to the issue of understanding the causes of such discrimination: gender discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices, and personal biases of organizational decision makers.

The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on HR Practices

The first contextual factor within which gender inequalities can be institutionalized is leadership. Leadership is a process wherein an individual (e.g., CEOs, managers) influences others in an effort to reach organizational goals ( Chemers, 1997 ; House and Aditya, 1997 ). Leaders determine and communicate what the organization’s priorities are to all members of the organization. Leaders are important as they affect the other organizational structures, processes, and practices. Specifically, leaders set culture, set policy, set strategy, and are role models for socialization. We suggest that one important way institutional gender inequality in leadership exists is when women are under-represented, compared with men—particularly when women are well-represented at lower levels within an organization.

An underrepresentation of women in leadership can be perpetuated easily because the gender of organizational leaders affects the degree to which there is gender discrimination, gender supportive policies, and a gender diversity supportive climate within an organization ( Ostroff et al., 2012 ). Organizational members are likely to perceive that the climate for women is positive when women hold key positions in the organization ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). Specifically, the presence of women in key positions acts as a vivid symbol indicating that the organization supports gender diversity. Consistent with this, industries that have fewer female high status managers have a greater gender wage gap ( Cohen and Huffman, 2007 ). Further, women who work with a male supervisor perceive less organizational support, compared with those who work with a female supervisor ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). In addition, women who work in departments that are headed by a man report experiencing more gender discrimination, compared with their counterparts in departments headed by women ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). Some of these effects may be mediated by a similar-to-me bias ( Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989 ), where leaders set up systems that reward and promote individuals like themselves, which can lead to discrimination toward women when leaders are predominantly male ( Davison and Burke, 2000 ; Roth et al., 2012 ). Thus, gender inequalities in leadership affect women’s experiences in the workplace and their likelihood of facing discrimination.

The second contextual factor to consider is organizational structure. The formal structure of an organization is how an organization arranges itself and it consists of employee hierarchies, departments, etc. ( Grant, 2010 ). An example of institutional discrimination in the formal structure of an organization are job ladders, which are typically segregated by gender ( Perry et al., 1994 ). Such gender-segregated job ladders typically exist within different departments of the organization. Women belonging to gender-segregated networks within organizations ( Brass, 1985 ) have less access to information about jobs, less status, and less upward mobility within the organization ( Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989 ; McDonald et al., 2009 ). This is likely because in gender-segregated networks, women have less visibility and lack access to individuals with power ( Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989 ). In gender-segregated networks, it is also difficult for women to find female mentors because there is a lack of women in high-ranking positions ( Noe, 1988 ; Linehan and Scullion, 2008 ). Consequently, the organizational structure can be marked by gender inequalities that reduce women’s chances of reaching top-level positions in an organization.

Gender inequalities can be inherent in the structure of an organization when there are gender segregated departments, job ladders, and networks, which are intimately tied to gender discrimination in HR practices. For instance, if HR policies are designed such that pay is determined based on comparisons between individuals only within a department (e.g., department-wide reporting structure, job descriptions, performance evaluations), then this can lead to a devaluation of departments dominated by women. The overrepresentation of women in certain jobs leads to the lower status of those jobs; consequently, the pay brackets for these jobs decrease over time as the number of women in these jobs increase (e.g., Huffman and Velasco, 1997 ; Reilly and Wirjanto, 1999 ). Similarly, networks led by women are also devalued for pay. For example, in a study of over 2,000 managers, after controlling for performance, the type of job, and the functional area (e.g., marketing, sales, accounting), those who worked with female mangers had lower wages than those who worked with male managers ( Ostroff and Atwater, 2003 ). Thus, gender inequalities in an organization’s structure in terms of gender segregation have reciprocal effects with gender discrimination in HR policy and decision-making.

Another contextual factor in our model is organizational strategy and how institutional discrimination within strategy is related to discrimination in HR practices. Strategy is a plan, method, or process by which an organization attempts to achieve its objectives, such as being profitable, maintaining and expanding its consumer base, marketing strategy, etc. ( Grant, 2010 ). Strategy can influence the level of inequality within an organization ( Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990 ; Hunter et al., 2001 ). For example, Hooters, a restaurant chain, has a marketing strategy to sexually attract heterosexual males, which has led to discrimination in HR policy, decisions, and enactment because only young, good-looking women are considered qualified ( Schneyer, 1998 ). When faced with appearance-based discrimination lawsuits regarding their hiring policies, Hooters has responded by claiming that such appearance requirements are bona fide job qualifications given their marketing strategy (for reviews, see Schneyer, 1998 ; Adamitis, 2000 ). Hooters is not alone, as many other establishments attempt to attract male cliental by requiring their female servers to meet a dress code involving a high level of grooming (make-up, hair), a high heels requirement, and a revealing uniform ( McGinley, 2007 ). Thus, sexist HR policies and practices in which differential standards are applied to male and female employees can stem from a specific organizational strategy ( Westall, 2015 ).

We now consider institutional gender bias within organizational culture and how it relates to discrimination in HR policies. Organizational culture refers to collectively held beliefs, assumptions, and values held by organizational members ( Trice and Beyer, 1993 ; Schein, 2010 ). Cultures arise from the values of the founders of the organization and assumptions about the right way of doing things, which are learned from dealing with challenges over time ( Ostroff et al., 2012 ). The founders and leaders of an organization are the most influential in forming, maintaining, and changing culture over time (e.g., Trice and Beyer, 1993 ; Jung et al., 2008 ; Hartnell and Walumbwa, 2011 ). Organizational culture can contribute to gender inequalities because culture constrains people’s ideas of what is possible: their strategies of action ( Swidler, 1986 ). In other words, when people encounter a problem in their workplace, the organizational culture—who we are, how we act, what is right—will provide only a certain realm of behavioral responses. For instance, in organizational cultures marked by greater gender inequality, women may have lower hopes and expectations for promotion, and when they are discriminated against, may be less likely to imagine that they can appeal their outcomes ( Kanter, 1977 ; Cassirer and Reskin, 2000 ). Furthermore, in organizational cultures marked by gender inequality, organizational decision makers should hold stronger descriptive and proscriptive gender stereotypes: they should more strongly believe that women have less ability to lead, less career commitment, and less emotional stability, compared with men ( Eagly et al., 1992 ; Heilman, 2001 ). We expand upon this point later.

Other aspects of organizational culture that are less obviously related to gender can also lead to discrimination in HR practices. For instance, an organizational culture that emphasizes concerns with meritocracy, can lead organizational members to oppose HR efforts to increase gender equality. This is because when people believe that outcomes ought to go only to those who are most deserving, it is easy for them to fall into the trap of believing that outcomes currently do go to those who are most deserving ( Son Hing et al., 2011 ). Therefore, people will believe that men deserve their elevated status and women deserve their subordinated status at work ( Castilla and Benard, 2010 ). Furthermore, the more people care about merit-based outcomes, the more they oppose affirmative action and diversity initiatives for women ( Bobocel et al., 1998 ; Son Hing et al., 2011 ), particularly when they do not recognize that discrimination occurs against women in the absence of such policies ( Son Hing et al., 2002 ). Thus, a particular organizational culture can influence the level of discrimination against women in HR and prevent the adoption of HR policies that would mitigate gender discrimination.

Finally, gender inequalities can be seen in organizational climates. An organizational climate consists of organizational members’ shared perceptions of the formal and informal organizational practices, procedures, and routines ( Schneider et al., 2011 ) that arise from direct experiences of the organization’s culture ( Ostroff et al., 2012 ). Organizational climates tend to be conceptualized and studied as “climates for” an organizational strategy ( Schneider, 1975 ; Ostroff et al., 2012 ). Gender inequalities are most clearly reflected in two forms of climate: climates for diversity and climates for sexual harassment.

A positive climate for diversity exists when organizational members perceive that diverse groups are included, empowered, and treated fairly. When employees perceive a less supportive diversity climate, they perceive greater workplace discrimination ( Cox, 1994 ; Ragins and Cornwall, 2001 ; Triana and García, 2009 ), and experience lower organizational commitment and job satisfaction ( Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000 ), and higher turnover intentions ( Triana et al., 2010 ). Thus, in organizations with a less supportive diversity climate, women are more likely to leave the organization, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in already male-dominated arenas ( Miner-Rubino and Cortina, 2004 ).

A climate for sexual harassment involves perceptions that the organization is permissive of sexual harassment. In organizational climates that are permissive of harassment, victims are reluctant to come forward because they believe that their complaints will not be taken seriously ( Hulin et al., 1996 ) and will result in negative personal consequences (e.g., Offermann and Malamut, 2002 ). Furthermore, men with a proclivity for harassment are more likely to act out these behaviors when permissive factors are present ( Pryor et al., 1993 ). Therefore, a permissive climate for sexual harassment can result in more harassing behaviors, which can lead women to disengage from their work and ultimately leave the organization ( Kath et al., 2009 ).

Organizational climates for diversity and for sexual harassment are inextricably linked to HR practices. For instance, a factor that leads to perceptions of diversity climates is whether the HR department has diversity training (seminars, workshops) and how much time and money is devoted to diversity efforts ( Triana and García, 2009 ). Similarly, a climate for sexual harassment depends on organizational members’ perceptions of how strict the workplace’s sexual harassment policy is, and how likely offenders are to be punished ( Fitzgerald et al., 1995b ; Hulin et al., 1996 ). Thus, HR policies, decision-making, and their enactment strongly affect gender inequalities in organizational climates and gender inequalities throughout an organization.

In summary, gender inequalities can exist within organizational structures, processes, and practices. However, organizational leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and climate do not inherently need to be sexist. It could be possible for these organizational structures, processes, and practices to promote gender equality. We return to this issue in the conclusion section.

The Effect of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism on How Organizational Decision Makers’ Conduct HR Practices

In this section, we explore how personal biases can affect personal discrimination in HR-related decisions and their enactment. Others have focused on how negative or hostile attitudes toward women predict discrimination in the workplace. However, we extend this analysis by drawing on ambivalent sexism theory, which involves hostile sexism (i.e., antagonistic attitudes toward women) and benevolent sexism (i.e., paternalistic attitudes toward women; see also Glick, 2013 ), both of which lead to discrimination against women.

Stereotyping processes are one possible explanation of how discrimination against women in male-typed jobs occurs and how women are relegated to the “pink ghetto” ( Heilman, 1983 ; Eagly and Karau, 2002 ; Rudman et al., 2012 ). Gender stereotypes, that is, expectations of what women and men are like, and what they should be like, are one of the most powerful schemas activated when people encounter others ( Fiske et al., 1991 ; Stangor et al., 1992 ). According to status characteristics theory, people’s group memberships convey important information about their status and their competence on specific tasks ( Berger et al., 1974 ; Berger et al., 1998 ; Correll and Ridgeway, 2003 ). Organizational decision makers will, for many jobs, have different expectations for men’s and women’s competence and job performance. Expectations of stereotyped-group members’ success can affect gender discrimination that occurs in HR-related decisions and enactment ( Roberson et al., 2007 ). For example, men are preferred over women for masculine jobs and women are preferred over men for feminine jobs ( Davison and Burke, 2000 ). Thus, the more that a workplace role is inconsistent with the attributes ascribed to women, the more a particular woman might be seen as lacking “fit” with that role, resulting in decreased performance expectations ( Heilman, 1983 ; Eagly and Karau, 2002 ).

Furthermore, because women are associated with lower status, and men with higher status, women experience backlash for pursuing high status roles (e.g., leadership) in the workplace ( Rudman et al., 2012 ). In other words, agentic women who act competitively and confidently in a leadership role, are rated as more socially deficient, less likeable and less hireable, compared with men who act the same way ( Rudman, 1998 ; Rudman et al., 2012 ). Interestingly though, if women pursue roles in the workplace that are congruent with traditional gender expectations, they will elicit positive reactions ( Eagly and Karau, 2002 ).

Thus, cultural, widely known, gender stereotypes can affect HR-related decisions. However, such an account does not take into consideration individual differences among organizational decision makers (e.g., managers, supervisors, or HR personnel) who may vary in the extent to which they endorse sexist attitudes or stereotypes. Individual differences in various forms of sexism (e.g., modern sexism, neosexism) have been demonstrated to lead to personal discrimination in the workplace ( Hagen and Kahn, 1975 ; Beaton et al., 1996 ; Hitlan et al., 2009 ). Ambivalent sexism theory builds on earlier theories of sexism by including attitudes toward women that, while sexist, are often experienced as positive in valence by perceivers and targets ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 ). Therefore, we draw on ambivalent sexism theory, which conceptualizes sexism as a multidimensional construct that encompasses both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward women ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 , 2001 ).

Hostile sexism involves antipathy and negative stereotypes about women, such as beliefs that women are incompetent, overly emotional, and sexually manipulative. Hostile sexism also involves beliefs that men should be more powerful than women and fears that women will try to take power from men ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 ; Cikara et al., 2008 ). In contrast, benevolent sexism involves overall positive views of women, as long as they occupy traditionally feminine roles. Individuals with benevolently sexist beliefs characterize women as weak and needing protection, support, and adoration. Importantly, hostile and benevolent sexism tend to go hand-in-hand (with a typical correlation of 0.40; Glick et al., 2000 ). This is because ambivalent sexists, people who are high in benevolent and hostile sexism, believe that women should occupy restricted domestic roles and that women are weaker than men are ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 ). Ambivalent sexists reconcile their potentially contradictory attitudes about women by acting hostile toward women whom they believe are trying to steal men’s power (e.g., feminists, professionals who show competence) and by acting benevolently toward traditional women (e.g., homemakers) who reinforce conventional gender relations and who serve men ( Glick et al., 1997 ). An individual difference approach allows us to build on the earlier models ( Heilman, 1983 ; Eagly and Karau, 2002 ; Rudman et al., 2012 ), by specifying who is more likely to discriminate against women and why.

Organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism should discriminate more against women in HR-related decisions ( Glick et al., 1997 ; Masser and Abrams, 2004 ). For instance, people high in hostile sexism have been found to evaluate candidates, who are believed to be women, more negatively and give lower employment recommendations for a management position, compared with matched candidates believed to be men ( Salvaggio et al., 2009 ) 1 . In another study, among participants who evaluated a female candidate for a managerial position, those higher in hostile sexism were less likely to recommend her for hire, compared with those lower in hostile sexism ( Masser and Abrams, 2004 ). Interestingly, among those evaluating a matched man for the same position, those higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism were more likely to recommend him for hire ( Masser and Abrams, 2004 ). According to ambivalent sexism theorists ( Glick et al., 1997 ), because people high in hostile sexism see women as a threat to men’s status, they act as gatekeepers denying women access to more prestigious or masculine jobs.

Furthermore, when enacting HR policies and decisions, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism should discriminate more against women in the form of gender harassment. Gender harassment can involve hostile terms of address, negative comments regarding women in management, sexist jokes, and sexist behavior ( Fitzgerald et al., 1995a , b ). It has been found that people higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism have more lenient attitudes toward the sexual harassment of women, which involves gender harassment, in the workplace ( Begany and Milburn, 2002 ; Russell and Trigg, 2004 ). Furthermore, men who more strongly believe that women are men’s adversaries tell more sexist jokes to a woman ( Mitchell et al., 2004 ). Women also report experiencing more incivility (i.e., low level, rude behavior) in the workplace than men ( Björkqvist et al., 1994 ; Cortina et al., 2001 , 2002 ), which could be due to hostile attitudes toward women. In summary, the evidence is consistent with the idea that organizational decision makers’ hostile sexism should predict their gender harassing behavior during HR enactment; however, more research is needed for such a conclusion.

In addition, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism should discriminate more against women when making HR-related decisions. It has been found that people higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism are more likely to automatically associate men with high-authority and women with low-authority roles and to implicitly stereotype men as agentic and women as communal ( Rudman and Kilianski, 2000 ). Thus, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism should more strongly believe that women are unfit for organizational roles that are demanding, challenging, and requiring agentic behavior. Indeed, in studies of male MBA students those higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism assigned a fictional woman less challenging tasks than a matched man ( King et al., 2012 ). The researchers reasoned that this occurred because men are attempting to “protect” women from the struggles of challenging work. Although there has been little research conducted that has looked at benevolent sexism and gender discrimination in HR-related decisions, the findings are consistent with our model.

Finally, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism should engage in a complex form of gender discrimination when enacting HR policy and decisions that involves mixed messages: women are more likely to receive messages of positive verbal feedback (e.g., “stellar work,” “excellent work”) but lower numeric ratings on performance appraisals, compared with men ( Biernat et al., 2012 ). It is proposed that this pattern of giving women positive messages about their performance while rating them poorly reflects benevolent sexists’ desire to protect women from harsh criticism. However, given that performance appraisals are used for promotion decisions and that constructive feedback is needed for learning, managers’ unwillingness to give women negative verbal criticisms can lead to skill plateau and career stagnation.

Furthermore, exposure to benevolent sexism can harm women’s motivation, goals and performance. Adolescent girls whose mothers are high in benevolent (but not hostile) sexism display lower academic goals and academic performance ( Montañés et al., 2012 ). Of greater relevance to the workplace, when role-playing a job candidate, women who interacted with a hiring manager scripted to make benevolently sexist statements became preoccupied with thoughts about their incompetence, and consequently performed worse in the interview, compared with those in a control condition ( Dardenne et al., 2007 ). These findings suggest that benevolent sexism during the enactment of HR practices can harm women’s work-related motivation and goals, as well as their performance, which can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy ( Word et al., 1974 ). In other words, the low expectations benevolent sexists have of women can be confirmed by women as they are undermined by paternalistic messages.

Ambivalent sexism can operate to harm women’s access to jobs, opportunities for development, ratings of performance, and lead to stigmatization. However, hostile and benevolent sexism operate in different ways. Hostile sexism has direct negative consequences for women’s access to high status, male-typed jobs ( Masser and Abrams, 2004 ; Salvaggio et al., 2009 ), and it is related to higher rates of sexual harassment ( Fitzgerald et al., 1995b ; Mitchell et al., 2004 ; Russell and Trigg, 2004 ), which negatively affect women’s health, well-being, and workplace withdrawal behaviors ( Willness et al., 2007 ). In contrast, benevolent sexism has indirect negative consequences for women’s careers, for instance, in preventing access to challenging tasks ( King et al., 2012 ) and critical developmental feedback ( Vescio et al., 2005 ). Interestingly, exposure to benevolent sexism results in worsened motivation and cognitive performance, compared with exposure to hostile sexism ( Dardenne et al., 2007 ; Montañés et al., 2012 ). This is because women more easily recognize hostile sexism as a form of discrimination and inequality, compared with benevolent sexism, which can be more subtle in nature ( Dardenne et al., 2007 ). Thus, women can externalize hostile sexism and mobilize against it, but the subtle nature of benevolent sexism prevents these processes ( Kay et al., 2005 ; Becker and Wright, 2011 ). Therefore, hostile and benevolent sexism lead to different but harmful forms of HR discrimination. Future research should more closely examine their potentially different consequences.

Thus far, we have articulated how gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices can affect discrimination in HR policy and in HR-related decision-making and enactment. Furthermore, we have argued that organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism are critical factors leading to personal discrimination in HR-related decision-making and enactment, albeit in different forms. We now turn to an integration of these two phenomena.

The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on Organizational Decision Makers’ Levels of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism

Organizational decision makers’ beliefs about men and women should be affected by the work environments in which they are embedded. Thus, when there are more gender inequalities within organizational structures, processes, and practices, organizational decision makers should have higher levels of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Two inter-related processes can account for this proposition: the establishment of who becomes and remains an organizational member, and the socialization of organizational members.

First, as organizations develop over time, forces work to attract, select, and retain an increasingly homogenous set of employees in terms of their hostile and benevolent sexism ( Schneider, 1983 , 1987 ). In support of this perspective, an individual’s values tend to be congruent with the values in his or her work environment (e.g., Holland, 1996 ; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005 ). People are attracted to and choose to work for organizations that have characteristics similar to their own, and organizations select individuals who are likely to fit with the organization. Thus, more sexist individuals are more likely to be attracted to organizations with greater gender inequality in leadership, structure, strategy, culture, climate, and HR policy; and they will be seen as a better fit during recruitment and selection. Finally, individuals who do not fit with the organization tend to leave voluntarily through the process of attrition. Thus, less (vs. more) sexist individuals would be more likely to leave a workplace with marked gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices. The opposite should be true for organizations with high gender equality. Through attraction, selection, and attrition processes it is likely that organizational members will become more sexist in a highly gender unequal organization and less sexist in a highly gender equal organization.

Second, socialization processes can change organizational members’ personal attributes, goals, and values to match those of the organization ( Ostroff and Rothausen, 1997 ). Organizational members’ receive both formal and informal messages about gender inequality—or equality—within an organization through their orientation and training, reading of organizational policy, perceptions of who rises in the ranks, how women (vs. men) are treated within the organization, as well as their perception of climates for diversity and sexual harassment. Socialization of organizational members over time has been shown to result in organizational members’ values and personalities changing to better match the values of the organization ( Kohn and Schooler, 1982 ; Cable and Parsons, 2001 ).

These socialization processes can operate to change organizational members’ levels of sexism. It is likely that within more sexist workplaces, people’s levels of hostile and benevolent sexism increase because their normative beliefs shift due to exposure to institutional discrimination against women, others’ sexist attitudes and behavior, and gender bias in culture and climate ( Schwartz and DeKeseredy, 2000 ; Ford et al., 2008 ; Banyard et al., 2009 ). These processes can also lead organizational decision makers to adopt less sexist attitudes in a workplace context marked by greater gender equality. Thus, organizational members’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism can be shaped by the degree of gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices and by the sexism levels of their work colleagues.

In addition, organizational decision makers can be socialized to act in discriminatory ways without personally becoming more sexist. If organizational decision makers witness others acting in a discriminatory manner with positive consequences, or acting in an egalitarian way with negative consequences, they can learn to become more discriminatory in their HR practices through observational learning ( Bandura, 1977 , 1986 ). So, organizational decision makers could engage in personal discrimination without being sexist if they perceive that the fair treatment of women in HR would encounter resistance given the broader organizational structures, processes, and practices promoting gender inequality. Yet over time, given cognitive dissonance ( Festinger, 1962 ), it is likely that discriminatory behavior could induce attitude change among organizational decision makers to become more sexist.

Thus far we have argued that gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices, organizational decision makers’ sexist attitudes, and gender discrimination in HR practices can have reciprocal, reinforcing relationships. Thus, it may appear that we have created a model that is closed and determinate in nature; however, this would be a misinterpretation. In the following section, we outline how organizations marked by gender inequalities can reduce discrimination against women.

How to Reduce Gender Discrimination in Organizations

The model we present for understanding gender discrimination in HR practices is complex. We believe that such complexity is necessary to accurately reflect the realities of organizational life. The model demonstrates that many sources of gender inequality are inter-related and have reciprocal effects. By implication, there are no simple or direct solutions to reduce gender discrimination in organizations. Rather, this complex problem requires multiple solutions. In fact, as discussed by Gelfand et al. (2007) , if an organization attempts to correct discrimination in only one aspect of organizational structure, process, or practice, and not others, such change attempts will be ineffective due to mixed messages. Therefore, we outline below how organizations can reduce gender discrimination by focusing on (a) HR policies (i.e., diversity initiatives and family friendly policies) and closely related organizational structures, processes, and practices; (b) HR-related decision-making and enactment; as well as, (c) the organizational decision makers who engage in such actions.

Reducing Gender Discrimination in HR Policy and Associated Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices

Organizations can take steps to mitigate discrimination in HR policies. As a first example, let us consider how an organization can develop, within its HR systems, diversity initiatives aimed at changing the composition of the workforce that includes policies to recruit, retain, and develop employees from underrepresented groups ( Jayne and Dipboye, 2004 ). Diversity initiatives can operate like affirmative action programs in that organizations track and monitor (a) the number of qualified candidates from different groups (e.g., women vs. men) in a pool, and (b) the number of candidates from each group hired or promoted. When the proportion of candidates from a group successfully selected varies significantly from their proportion in the qualified pool then action, such as targeted recruitment efforts, needs to be taken.

Importantly, such efforts to increase diversity can be strengthened by other HR policies that reward managers, who select more diverse personnel, with bonuses ( Jayne and Dipboye, 2004 ). Organizations that incorporate diversity-based criteria into their performance and promotion policies and offer meaningful incentives to managers to identify and develop successful female candidates for promotion are more likely to succeed in retaining and promoting diverse talent ( Murphy and Cleveland, 1995 ; Cleveland et al., 2000 ). However, focusing on short-term narrowly defined criteria, such as increasing the number of women hired, without also focusing on candidates’ merit and providing an adequate climate or support for women are unlikely to bring about any long-term change in diversity, and can have detrimental consequences for its intended beneficiaries ( Heilman et al., 1992 , 1997 ). Rather, to be successful, HR policies for diversity need to be supported by the other organizational structures, processes, and practices, such as strategy, leadership, and climate.

For instance, diversity initiatives should be linked to strategies to create a business case for diversity ( Jayne and Dipboye, 2004 ). An organization with a strategy to market to more diverse populations can justify that a more diverse workforce can better serve potential clientele ( Jayne and Dipboye, 2004 ). Alternatively, an organization that is attempting to innovate and grow might justify a corporate strategy to increase diversity on the grounds that diverse groups have multiple perspectives on a problem with the potential to generate more novel, creative solutions ( van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ). Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for the HR policies for them to be successful ( Rynes and Rosen, 1995 ). Given the same HR policy within an organization, leaders’ personal attitudes toward the policy affects the discrimination levels found within their unit ( Pryor, 1995 ; Pryor et al., 1995 ). Finally, diversity programs are more likely to succeed in multicultural organizations with strong climates for diversity ( Elsass and Graves, 1997 ; Jayne and Dipboye, 2004 ). An organization’s climate for diversity consists of employees’ shared perceptions that the organization’s structures, processes, and practices are committed to maintaining diversity and eliminating discrimination ( Nishii and Raver, 2003 ; Gelfand et al., 2007 ). In organizations where employees perceive a strong climate for diversity, diversity programs result in greater employee attraction and retention among women and minorities, at all levels of the organization ( Cox and Blake, 1991 ; Martins and Parsons, 2007 ).

As a second example of how HR policies can mitigate gender inequalities, we discuss HR policies to lessen employees’ experience of work-family conflict. Work-family conflict is a type of role conflict that workers experience when the demands (e.g., emotional, cognitive, time) of their work role interfere with the demands of their family role or vice versa ( Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985 ). Work-family conflict has the negative consequences of increasing employee stress, illness-related absence, and desire to turnover ( Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999 ). Importantly, women are more adversely affected by work-family conflict than men ( Martins et al., 2002 ). Work-family conflict can be exacerbated by HR policies that evaluate employees based on face time (i.e., number of hours present at the office), as a proxy for organizational commitment ( Perlow, 1995 ; Elsbach et al., 2010 ).

Formal family friendly HR policies can be adopted to relieve work-family conflict directly, which differentially assists women in the workplace. For instance, to reduce work-family conflict, organizations can implement HR policies such as flexible work arrangements, which involve flexible schedules, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, job-shares, and part-time work ( Galinsky et al., 2008 ). In conjunction with other family friendly policies, such as the provision of childcare, elderly care, and paid maternity leave, organizations can work to reduce stress and improve the retention of working mothers ( Burke, 2002 ).

Unfortunately, it has been found that the enactment of flexible work policies can still lead to discrimination. Organizational decision makers’ sexism can lead them to grant more flexible work arrangements to white men than to women and other minorities because white men are seen as more valuable ( Kelly and Kalev, 2006 ). To circumvent this, organizations need to formalize HR policies relating to flexible work arrangements ( Kelly and Kalev, 2006 ). For instance, formal, written policies should articulate who can adopt flexible work arrangements (e.g., employees in specific divisions or with specific job roles) and what such arrangements look like (e.g., core work from 10 am to 3 pm with flexible work hours from 7 to 10 am or from 3 to 6 pm). When the details of such policies are formally laid out, organizational decision makers have less latitude and therefore less opportunity for discrimination in granting access to these arrangements.

To be successful, family friendly HR policies should be tied to other organizational structures, processes, and practices such as organizational strategy, leadership, culture, and climate. A business case for flexible work arrangements can be made because they attract and retain top-talent, which includes women ( Baltes et al., 1999 ). Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for family friendly programs ( Jayne and Dipboye, 2004 ). Leaders can help bolster the acceptance of family friendly policies through successive interactions, communications, visibility, and role modeling with employees. For instance, a leader who sends emails at 2 o’clock in the morning is setting a different expectation of constant availability than a leader who never sends emails after 7:00 pm. Family friendly HR policies must also be supported by simultaneously changing the underlying organizational culture that promotes face time. Although it is difficult to change the culture of an organization, the leaders’ of the organization play an influential role in instilling such change because the behaviors of leaders are antecedents and triggers of organizational culture ( Kozlowski and Doherty, 1989 ; Ostroff et al., 2012 ). In summary, HR policies must be supported by other organizational structures, processes, and practices in order for these policies to be effective.

Adopting HR diversity initiative policies and family friendly policies can reduce gender discrimination and reshape the other organizational structures, processes, and practices and increase gender equality in them. Specifically, such policies, if successful, should increase the number of women in all departments and at all levels of an organization. Further, having more women in leadership positions signals to organizational members that the organization takes diversity seriously, affecting the diversity climate of the organization, and ultimately its culture ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). Thus, particular HR policies can reduce gender inequalities in all of the other organizational structures, processes, and practices.

Reducing Gender Discrimination in HR-Related Decision-Making and Enactment

A wealth of research demonstrates that an effective means of reducing personal bias by organizational decision makers in HR practices is to develop HR policies that standardize and objectify performance data (e.g., Konrad and Linnehan, 1995 ; Reskin and McBrier, 2000 ). To reduce discrimination in personnel decisions (i.e., employee hiring and promotion decisions) a job analysis should be performed to determine the appropriate knowledge skills and abilities needed for specific positions ( Fine and Cronshaw, 1999 ). This ensures that expectations about characteristics of the ideal employee for that position are based on accurate knowledge of the job and not gender stereotypes about the job ( Welle and Heilman, 2005 ). To reduce discrimination in performance evaluations, HR policies should necessitate the use of reliable measures based on explicit objective performance expectations and apply these practices consistently across all worker evaluations ( Bernardin et al., 1998 ; Ittner et al., 2003 ). Employees’ performance should be evaluated using behaviorally anchored rating scales ( Smith and Kendall, 1963 ) that allow supervisors to rate subordinates on examples of actual work behaviors. These evaluations should be done regularly, given that delays require retrieving memories of work performance and this process can be biased by gender stereotypes ( Sanchez and De La Torre, 1996 ). Finally, if greater gender differences are found on selection tests than on performance evaluations, then the use of such biased selection tests needs to be revisited ( Chung-Yan and Cronshaw, 2002 ). In summary, developing HR policies that standardize and objectify the process of employee/candidate evaluations can reduce personal bias in HR practices.

Importantly, the level of personal discrimination enacted by organizational decision makers can be reduced by formalizing HR policies, and by controlling the situations under which HR-related decisions are made. We have articulated how HR-related decisions involve social cognition and are therefore susceptible to biases introduced by the use of gender stereotypes. This can occur unwittingly by those who perceive themselves to be unprejudiced but who are affected by stereotypes or negative automatic associations nonetheless ( Chugh, 2004 ; Son Hing et al., 2008 ). For instance, when HR policies do not rely on objective criteria, and the context for evaluation is ambiguous, organizational decision makers will draw on gender (and other) stereotypes to fill in the blanks when evaluating candidates ( Heilman, 1995 , 2001 ). Importantly, the context can be constructed in such a way as to reduce these biases. For instance, organizational decision makers will make less biased judgments of others if they have more time available to evaluate others, are less cognitively busy ( Martell, 1991 ), have higher quality of information available about candidates, and are accountable for justifying their ratings and decisions ( Kulik and Bainbridge, 2005 ; Roberson et al., 2007 ). Thus, if they have the time, motivation, and opportunity to make well-informed, more accurate judgments, then discrimination in performance ratings can be reduced.

Reducing Organizational Decision Makers’ Sexism

Another means to reduce gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and enactment is to focus directly on reducing the hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs of organizational decision makers. Interventions aimed at reducing these beliefs typically involve diversity training, such as a seminar, course, or workshop. Such training involves one or more sessions that involve interactive discussions, lectures, and practical assignments. During the training men and women are taught about sexism and how gender roles in society are socially constructed. Investigations have shown these workshop-based interventions are effective at reducing levels of hostile sexism but have inconsistent effects on benevolent sexism ( Case, 2007 ; de Lemus et al., 2014 ). The subtle, and in some ways positive nature of benevolent sexism makes it difficult to confront and reduce using such interventions. However, levels of benevolent sexism are reduced when individuals are explicitly informed about the harmful implications of benevolent sexism ( Becker and Swim, 2012 ). Unfortunately, these interventions have not been tested in organizational settings. So their efficacy in the field is unknown.

Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in HR practices (i.e., policies, decision-making, and their enactment) that affects the hiring, training, pay, and promotion of women. We propose that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices, including HR policy but also leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and organizational climate. Moreover, reciprocal effects should occur, such that discriminatory HR practices can perpetuate gender inequalities in organizational leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and climate. Organizational decision makers also play an important role in gender discrimination. We propose that personal discrimination in HR-related decisions and enactment arises from organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. While hostile sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to keep them from positions of power, benevolent sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to protect them. Finally, we propose that gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices affect organizational decision makers’ sexism through attraction, selection, socialization, and attrition processes. Thus, a focus on organizational structure, processes, and practices is critical.

The model we have developed extends previous work by Gelfand et al. (2007) in a number of substantive ways. Gelfand et al. (2007) proposed that aspects of the organization, that is, structure, organizational culture, leadership, strategy, HR systems, and organizational climates, are all interrelated and may contribute to or attenuate discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia). First, we differ from their work by emphasizing that workplace discrimination is most directly attributable to HR practices. Consequently, we emphasize how inequalities in other organizational structures, processes, and practices affect institutional discrimination in HR policy. Second, our model differs from that of Gelfand et al. (2007) in that we focus on the role of organizational decision makers in the enactment of HR policy. The attitudes of these decision makers toward specific groups of employees are critical. However, the nature of prejudice differs depending on the target group ( Son Hing and Zanna, 2010 ). Therefore, we focus on one form of bias—sexism—in the workplace. Doing so, allows us to draw on more nuanced theories of prejudice, namely ambivalent sexism theory ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 ). Thus, third, our model differs from the work of Gelfand et al. (2007) by considering how dual beliefs about women (i.e., hostile and benevolent beliefs) can contribute to different forms of gender discrimination in HR practices. Fourth, we differ from Gelfand et al. (2007) by reviewing how organizational decision makers’ level of sexism within an organization is affected by organizational structures, processes, and practices via selection-attraction-attrition processes and through socialization processes.

However, the model we have developed is not meant to be exhaustive. There are multiple issues that we have not addressed but should be considered: what external factors feed into our model? What other links within the model might arise? What are the limits to its generalizability? What consequences derive from our model? How can change occur given a model that is largely recursive in nature? We focus on these issues throughout our conclusion.

In this paper, we have illustrated what we consider to be the dominant links in our model; however, additional links are possible. First, we do not lay out the factors that feed into our model, such as government regulations, the economy, their competitors, and societal culture. In future work, one could analyze the broader context that organizations operate in, which influences its structures, processes, and practices, as well as its members. For instance, in societies marked by greater gender inequalities, the levels of hostile and benevolent sexism of organizational decision makers will be higher ( Glick et al., 2000 ). Second, there is no link demonstrating how organizational decision makers who are more sexist have the capacity, even if they sit lower in the organizational hierarchy, to influence the amount of gender inequality in organizational structures, processes, and practices. It is possible for low-level managers or HR personnel who express more sexist sentiments to—through their own behavior—affect others’ perceptions of the tolerance for discrimination in the workplace ( Ford et al., 2001 ) and others’ perceptions of the competence and hireability of female job candidates ( Good and Rudman, 2010 ). Thus, organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism can affect organizational climates, and potentially other organizational structures, processes, and practices. Third, it is possible that organizational structures, processes, and practices could moderate the link between organizational decision makers’ sexist attitudes and their discriminatory behavior in HR practices. The ability of people to act in line with their attitudes depends on the strength of the constraints in the social situation and the broader context ( Lewin, 1935 , 1951 ). Thus, if organizational structures, processes, and practices clearly communicate the importance of gender equality then the discriminatory behavior of sexist organizational decision makers should be constrained. Accordingly, organizations should take steps to mitigate institutional discrimination by focusing on organizational structures, processes, and practices rather than focusing solely on reducing sexism in individual employees.

Our model does not consider how women’s occupational status is affected by their preferences for gender-role-consistent careers and their childcare and family responsibilities, which perhaps should not be underestimated (e.g., Manne, 2001 ; Hakim, 2006 ; Ceci et al., 2009 ). In other words, lifestyle preferences could contribute to gender differences in the workplace. However, it is important to consider how women’s agency in choosing occupations and managing work-life demands is constrained. Gender imbalances (e.g., in pay) in the workplace (e.g., Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 ) and gender imbalances in the home (e.g., in domestic labor, childcare; Bianchi, 2000 ; Bianchi et al., 2000 ) shape the decisions that couples (when they consist of a woman and a man) make about how to manage dual careers. For instance, research has uncovered that women with professional degrees leave the labor force at roughly three times the rate of men ( Baker, 2002 ). Women’s decisions to interrupt their careers were difficult and were based on factors, such as workplace inflexibility, and their husbands’ lack of domestic responsibilities, rather than a preference to stay at home with their children ( Stone and Lovejoy, 2004 ). Thus, both factors inside and outside the workplace constrain and shape women’s career decisions.

Our model is derived largely from research that has been conducted in male-dominated organizations; however, we speculate that it should hold for female-dominated organizations. There is evidence that tokenism does not work against men in terms of their promotion potential in female-dominated environments. Rather, there is some evidence for a glass-escalator effect for men in female-dominated fields, such as nursing, and social work ( Williams, 1992 ). In addition, regardless of the gender composition of the workplace, men are advantaged, compared with women in terms of earnings and wage growth ( Budig, 2002 ). Finally, even in female-dominated professions, segregation along gender lines occurs in organizational structure ( Snyder and Green, 2008 ). Thus, the literature suggests that our model should hold for female-dominated environments.

Some might question if our model assumes that organizational decision makers enacting HR practices are men. It does not. There is evidence that decision makers who are women also discriminate against women (e.g., the Queen Bee phenomenon; Ellemers et al., 2004 ). Further, although men are higher in hostile sexism, compared with women ( Glick et al., 1997 , 2000 ), they are not necessarily higher in benevolent sexism ( Glick et al., 2000 ). More importantly, the effects of hostile and benevolent sexism are not moderated by participant gender ( Masser and Abrams, 2004 ; Salvaggio et al., 2009 ; Good and Rudman, 2010 ). Thus, those who are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism respond in a more discriminatory manner, regardless of whether they are men or women. Thus, organizational decision makers, regardless of their sex, should discriminate more against women in HR practices when they are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism.

In future work, the consequences of our model for women discriminated against in HR practices should be considered. The negative ramifications of sexism and discrimination on women are well known: physical and psychological stress, worse physical health (e.g., high blood pressure, ulcers, anxiety, depression; Goldenhar et al., 1998 ); lower job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and attachment to work ( Murrell et al., 1995 ; Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000 ); lower feelings of power and prestige ( Gutek et al., 1996 ); and performance decrements through stereotype threat ( Spencer et al., 1999 ). However, how might these processes differ depending on the proximal cause of the discrimination?

Our model lays out two potential paths by which women might be discriminated against in HR practices: institutional discrimination stemming from organizational structures, processes, and practices and personal discrimination stemming from organizational decision makers’ levels of sexism. In order for the potential stressor of stigmatization to lead to psychological and physical stress it must be seen as harmful and self-relevant ( Son Hing, 2012 ). Thus, if institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices are completely hidden then discrimination might not cause stress reactions associated with stigmatization because it may be too difficult for women to detect ( Crosby et al., 1986 ; Major, 1994 ), and label as discrimination ( Crosby, 1984 ; Stangor et al., 2003 ). In contrast, women should be adversely affected by stigmatization in instances where gender discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices is more evident. For instance, greater perceptions of discrimination are associated with lower self-esteem in longitudinal studies ( Schmitt et al., 2014 ).

It might appear that we have created a model, which is a closed system, with no opportunities to change an organization’s trajectory: more unequal organizations will become more hierarchical, and more equal organizations will become more egalitarian. We do not believe this to be true. One potential impetus for organizations to become more egalitarian may be some great shock such as sex-based discrimination lawsuits that the organization either faces directly or sees its competitors suffer. Large corporations have been forced to settle claims of gender harassment and gender discrimination with payouts upward of $21 million ( Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2004 ; LexisNexis, 2010 ; Velez, et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Crop, et al., 2010 ). Discrimination lawsuits are time consuming and costly ( James and Wooten, 2006 ), resulting in lower shares, lower public perceptions, higher absenteeism, and higher turnover ( Wright et al., 1995 ). Expensive lawsuits experienced either directly or indirectly should act as a big driver in the need for change.

Furthermore, individual women can work to avoid stigmatization. Women in the workplace are not simply passive targets of stereotyping processes. People belonging to stigmatized groups can engage in a variety of anti-stigmatization techniques, but their response options are constrained by the cultural repertoires available to them ( Lamont and Mizrachi, 2012 ). In other words, an organization’s culture will provide its members with a collective imaginary for how to behave. For instance, it might be unimaginable for a woman to file a complaint of sexual harassment if she knows that complaints are never taken seriously. Individuals do negotiate stigmatization processes; however, this is more likely when stigmatization is perceived as illegitimate and when they have the resources to do so ( Major and Schmader, 2001 ). Thus, at an individual level, people engage in strategies to fight being discriminated against but these strategies are likely more constrained for those who are most stigmatized.

Finally, possibly the most efficacious way for organizational members (men and women) to challenge group-based inequality and to improve the status of women as a whole is to engage in collective action (e.g., participate in unions, sign petitions, organize social movements, recruit others to join a movement; Klandermans, 1997 ; Wright and Lubensky, 2009 ). People are most likely to engage in collective action when they perceive group differences as underserved or illegitimate ( Wright, 2001 ). Such a sense of relative deprivation involves feelings of injustice and anger that prompt a desire for wide scale change ( van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). Interestingly, people are more likely to experience relative deprivation when inequalities have begun to be lessened, and thus their legitimacy questioned ( Crosby, 1984 ; Kawakami and Dion, 1993 ; Stangor et al., 2003 ). If organizational leaders respond to such demands for change by altering previously gender oppressive organizational structures, processes, and practices, this can, in people’s minds, open the door for additional changes. Therefore, changes to mitigate gender inequalities within any organizational structure, policy, or practice could start a cascade of transformations leading to a more equal organization for men and women.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) awarded to Leanne S. Son Hing.

1 In this study, candidates were identified with initials and participants were asked to indicate the presumed gender of the candidate after evaluating them.

• Abrams K. (1991). Social construction, roving biologism, and reasonable women: a response to Professor Epstein. DePaul Law Rev. 41 1021–1040. [ Google Scholar ]
• Acker J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gend. Soc. 4 139–158. 10.1177/089124390004002002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adamitis E. M. (2000). Appearance matters: a proposal to prohibit appearance discrimination in employment. Wash. Law Rev. 75 195–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adler N. E., Epel E. S., Castellazzo G., Ickovics J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychol. 19 586–592. 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker J. G. (2002). The influx of women into legal professions: an economic analysis. Mon. Labor Rev. 125 12–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baltes B. B., Briggs T. E., Huff J. W., Wright J. A., Neuman G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: a meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 496–513. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.496 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84 191–215. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 4 359–373. 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banyard V. L., Moynihan M. M., Crossman M. T. (2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: the role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 50 446–457. 10.1353/csd.0.0083 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barling J., Dekker I., Loughlin C. A., Kelloway E. K., Fullagar C., Johnson D. (1996). Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment. J. Manag. Psychol. 11 4–25. 10.1108/02683949610124771 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baxter J., Wright E. O. (2000). The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gend. Soc. 14 275–294. 10.1177/089124300014002004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaton A. M., Tougas F., Joly S. (1996). Neosexism among male managers: is it a matter of numbers? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26 2189–2203. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01795.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker J. C., Swim J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Soc. Psychol. 43 127–137. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000091 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker J. C., Wright S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 62–77. 10.1037/a0022615 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Begany J. J., Milburn M. A. (2002). Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Psychol. Men Masc. 3 119–126. 10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berdhal J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 425–437. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger J., Conner T. L., Fisek M. H. (eds). (1974). Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger J., Fisek M. H., Norman R. Z., Wagner D. G. (1998). “Formation of reward expectations in status situations,” in Status, Power, and Legitimacy eds Berger J., Zelditch M., Jr. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; ) 121–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernardin H. J., Hagan C. M., Kane J. S., Villanova P. (1998). “Effective performance management: a focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints,” in Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice ed. Smither J. W. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ) 3–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bianchi S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography 47 401–414. 10.1353/dem.2000.0001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bianchi S. M., Milkie M. A., Sayer L. C., Robinson J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Soc. Forces 79 191–228. 10.1093/sf/79.1.191 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biernat M., Tocci M. J., Williams J. C. (2012). The language of performance evaluations: gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3 186–192. 10.1177/1948550611415693 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Björkqvist K., Österman K., Hjelt-Bäck M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggress. Behav. 20 173–184. 10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:3<173::AID-AB2480200304>3.0.CO;2-D [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau F. D., DeVaro J. (2007). New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: an empirical analysis of a sample of new hires. Ind. Relat. 46 511–550. 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2007.00479.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobocel R. D., Son Hing L. S., Davey L. M., Stanley D. J., Zanna M. P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: is it genuine? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75 653–669. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.653 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boldry J., Wood W., Kashy D. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. J. Soc. Issues 57 689–705. 10.1111/0022-4537.00236 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borrel C., Artazcoz L., Gil-González D., Pérez G., Rohlfs I., Pérez K. (2010). Perceived sexism as a health determinant in Spain. J. Womens Health 19 741–750. 10.1089/jwh.2009.1594 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Branscombe N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: consequences for well-being in women and men. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 37 167–184. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01163.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brass D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Acad. Manag. J. 28 327–343. 10.2307/256204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Budig M. J. (2002). Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: who rides the glass escalator? Soc. Probl. 49 258–277. 10.1525/sp.2002.49.2.258 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke R. J. (2002). Organizational values, job experiences and satisfactions among managerial and professional women and men: advantage men? Women Manag. Rev. 17 228–236. 10.1108/09649420210433184 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cable D. M., Parsons C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Pers. Psychol. 54 1–23. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00083.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Case K. A. (2007). Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: an evaluation of diversity courses. Psychol. Women Q. 31 426–435. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00391.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassirer N., Reskin B. (2000). High Hopes: organizational position, employment experiences, and women and men’s promotion aspirations. Work Occup. 27 438–463. 10.1177/0730888400027004002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castilla E. J., Benard S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Admin. Sci. Q. 55 543–576. 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceci S. J., Williams W. M., Barnett S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychol. Bull. 135 218–261. 10.1037/a0014412 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chemers M. M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chugh D. (2004). Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: why milliseconds matter. Soc. Justice Res. 17 203–222. 10.1023/B:SORE.0000027410.26010.40 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung-Yan G. A., Cronshaw S. F. (2002). A critical re-examination and analysis of cognitive ability tests using the Thorndike model of fairness. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 75 489–509. 10.1348/096317902321119709 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cikara M., Lee T. L., Fiske S. T., Glick P. (2008). “Ambivalent sexism at home and at work: how attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in the public sphere,” in Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification eds Jost J. T., Kay A. C., Thorisdottir H. (New York: Oxford University Press; ) 444–462. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleveland J. N., Stockdale M., Murphy K. R., Gutek B. A. (2000). Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen P. N., Huffman M. L. (2007). Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72 681–704. 10.1177/000312240707200502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen-Charash Y., Spector P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86 278–321. 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Correll S. J., Ridgeway C. L. (2003). “Expectation states theory,” in Handbook of Social Psychology ed. Delamater J. (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Press; ) 29–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortina L. M., Lonsway K. A., Magley V. J., Freeman L. V., Collinsworth L. L., Hunter M., et al. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law Soc. Inq. 27 235–270. 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortina L. M., Magley V. J., Williams J. H., Langhout R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6 64–80. 10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox T. H., Blake S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Executive 5 45–56. 10.5465/AME.1991.4274465 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox T. H., Harquail C. V. (1991). Career paths and career success in the early career stages of male and female MBAs. J. Vocat. Behav. 39 54–75. 10.1016/0001-8791(91)90004-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crocker D., Kalemba V. (1999). The incidence and impact of women’s experiences of sexual harassment in Canadian workplaces. Can. Rev. Sociol. 36 541–558. 10.1111/j.1755-618X.1999.tb00963.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosby F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. Am. Behav. Sci. 27 371–386. 10.1177/000276484027003008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosby F., Clayton S., Alksnis O., Hemker K. (1986). Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: the importance of format. Sex Roles 14 637–646. 10.1007/BF00287694 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., Glick P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. J. Soc. Issues 60 701–718. 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dardenne B., Dumont M., Bollier T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women’s performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 764–779. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison H. K., Burke M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: a meta-analytic investigation. J. Vocat. Behav. 56 225–248. 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Lemus S., Navarro L., Velázquez M. J., Ryan E., Megías J. L. (2014). From sex to gender: a university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. J. Soc. Issues 70 741–762. 10.1111/josi.12089 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Pater I. E., Van Vianen A. E. M., Bechtoldt M. N. (2010). Gender differences in job challenge: a matter of task allocation. Gend. Work Organ. 17 433–453. 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00477.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durden G. C., Gaynor P. E. (1998). More on the cost of being other than white and male. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 57 95–103. 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1998.tb03259.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Carli L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women become Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Karau S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109 573–598. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Makhijani M. G., Klonsky B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111 3–22. 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellemers N., Heuvel H., Gilder D., Maass A., Bonvini A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 43 315–338. 10.1348/0144666042037999 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elsass P. M., Graves L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the experiences of women and people of color. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 946–973. 10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022111 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elsbach K. D., Cable D. M., Sherman J. W. (2010). How passive ‘face time’ affects perceptions of employees: evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Hum. Relat. 63 735–760. 10.1177/0018726709353139 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Festinger L. (1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine S. A., Cronshaw S. F. (1999). Functional Job Analysis: A Foundation for Human Resources Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Firth M. (1982). Sex discrimination in job opportunities for women. Sex Roles 8 891–901. 10.1007/BF00287858 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske A. P., Haslam N., Fiske S. T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: what errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60 656–674. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.656 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82 878–902. 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Xu J., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. J. Soc. Issues 55 473–489. 10.1111/0022-4537.00128 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzgerald L. F., Gelfand M. J., Drasgow F. (1995a). Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 17 425–445. 10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzgerald L. F., Hulin C. L., Drasgow F. (1995b). “The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: an integrated model,” in Job Stress in a Changing Workforce: Investigating Gender, Diversity, and Family Issues eds Keita G., Hurrell J., Jr. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ) 55–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzgerald L. F., Shullman S. L., Bailey N., Richards M., Swecker J., Gold Y., et al. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. J. Vocat. Behav. 32 152–175. 10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ford T. E., Boxer C. F., Armstrong J., Edel J. R. (2008). More than “just a joke”: the prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 159–170. 10.1177/0146167207310022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ford T. E., Wentzel E. R., Lorion J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31 677–691. 10.1002/ejsp.56 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuegen K., Biernat M., Haines E., Deaux K. (2004). Mothers and fathers in the workplace: how gender and parental status influence judgements of job-related competence. J. Soc. Issues 60 737–754. 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00383.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galinsky E., Bond J., Sakai K. (2008). 2008 National Study of Employers. Available at: http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/2008nse.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelfand M. J., Nishii L. H., Raver J. L., Schneider B. (2007). Discrimination in Organizations: An Organizational-Level Systems Perspective (CAHRS Working Paper #07-08). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved from Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerhart B., Rynes S. (1991). Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. J. Appl. Psychol. 76 256–262. 10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004). 470 Mich. 749, 685 N.W.2d 391 2004 Lansing, MI: Supreme Court of Michigan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glass J. (2004). Blessing or curse? Work-family policies and mother’s wage growth over time. Work Occup. 31 367–394. 10.1177/0730888404266364 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick P. (2013). “BS at work: how benevolent sexism undermines women and justifies backlash,” in Paper Presented at the Harvard Business School symposium Gender & Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom Boston, MA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick P., Diebold J., Bailey-Werner B., Zhu L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 1323–1334. 10.1177/01461672972312009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick P., Fiske S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70 491–512. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick P., Fiske S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. Am. Psychol. 56 109–118. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick P., Fiske S. T., Mladinic A., Saiz J. L., Abrams D., Masser B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across culture. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 763–775. 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction 5 316–322. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldenhar L. M., Swanson N. G., Hurrell J. J., Jr., Ruder A., Deddens J. (1998). Stressors and adverse outcomes for female construction workers. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 3 19–32. 10.1037/1076-8998.3.1.19 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Good J. J., Rudman L. A. (2010). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: the costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles 62 481–493. 10.1007/s11199-009-9685-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grandey A. A., Cropanzano R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. J. Vocat. Behav. 54 350–370. 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant R. M. (2010). Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Seventh Edition. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenhaus J. H., Beutell N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10 76–88. 10.5465/AMR.1985.4277352 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gutek B. A., Cohen A. G., Tsui A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Hum. Relat. 49 791–813. 10.1177/001872679604900604 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagen R. L., Kahn A. (1975). Discrimination against competent women. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 5 362–376. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00688.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakim C. (2006). Women, careers, and work-life preferences. Br. J. Guid. Counc. 34 279–294. 10.1080/03069880600769118 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartnell C. A., Walumbwa F. O. (2011). “Transformational leadership and organizational culture,” in The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate eds Ashkanasy N. M., Wilderom C. P. M., Peterson M. F. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; ) 225–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hebl M. R., King E. B., Glick P., Singletary S. L., Kazama S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 1499–1511. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1499 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E. (1983). “Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model,” in Research in Organizational Behavior Vol. 5 eds Staw B., Cummings L. (Greenwich, CT: JAI press; ) 269–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: what we know and what we don’t know. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 10 3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57 657–674. 10.1111/0022-4537.00234 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E., Block C. J., Lucas J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 536–544. 10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E., Block C. J., Stathatos P. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: effects of performance information ambiguity. Acad. Manag. J. 40 603–625. 10.2307/257055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M., Okimoto T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 81–92. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M., Okimoto T. G. (2008). Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 189–198. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.189 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hicks-Clarke D., Iles P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its effects on career and organisational attitudes and perceptions. Person. Rev. 29 324–345. 10.1108/00483480010324689 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitlan R. T., Pryor J. B., Hesson-McInnis M. S., Olson M. (2009). Antecedents of gender harassment: an analysis of person and situation factors. Sex Roles 61 794–807. 10.1007/s11199-009-9689-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holland J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned and some new directions. Am. Psychol. 51 397–406. 10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.397 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hough L. M., Oswald F. L., Ployhart R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: issues, evidence, and lessons learned. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 9 152–194. 10.1111/1468-2389.00171 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J., Aditya R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? J. Manag. 23 409–473. 10.1177/014920639702300306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huffman M. L., Velasco S. C. (1997). When more is less: sex composition, organizations, and earnings in U.S. firms . Work Occup. 24 214–244. 10.1177/0730888497024002005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulin C. L., Fitzgerald L. F., Drasgow F. (1996). “Organizational influences on sexual harassment,” in Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies. Women and Work: A Research and Policy Series Vol. 5 ed. Stockdale M. S. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; ) 127–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter J. E., Schmidt F. L., Jackson G. B. (1982). Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter L. W., Bernhardt A., Hughes K. L., Skuratowicz E. (2001). It’s not just the ATMs: technology, firm strategies, jobs, and earnings in retail banking. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 54 402–424. 10.1177/001979390105400222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ittner C. D., Larcker D. F., Meyer M. W. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. Account. Rev. 78 725–758. 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• James E. H., Wooten L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: how firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Acad. Manag. J. 49 1103–1118. 10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478091 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jayne M. E., Dipboye R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: research findings and recommendations for organizations. Hum. Resour. Manag. 43 409–424. 10.1002/hrm.20033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung D., Wu A., Chow C. W. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation. Leadersh. Q. 19 582–594. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanter R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kath L. M., Swody C. A., Magley V. J., Bunk J. A., Gallus J. A. (2009). Cross-level, three-way interactions among work-group climate, gender, and frequency of harassment on morale and withdrawal outcomes of sexual harassment. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82 159–182. 10.1348/096317908X299764 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kawakami K., Dion K. L. (1993). The impact of salient self-identities on relative deprivation and action intentions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 23 525–540. 10.1002/ejsp.2420230509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kay A. C., Jost J. T., Young S. (2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Psychol. Sci. 16 240–246. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00810.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly E. L., Kalev A. (2006). Managing flexible work arrangements in US organizations: formalized discretion or a ‘right to ask’. Soc. Econ. Rev. 4 379–416. 10.1093/ser/mwl001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King E. B., Botsford W., Hebl M. R., Kazama S., Dawson J. F., Perkins A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. J. Manag. 38 1835–1866. 10.1177/0149206310365902 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klandermans B. (1997). The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Basic Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn M. L., Schooler C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: a longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. Am. J. Sociol. 87 1257–1286. 10.1086/227593 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konrad A. M., Cannings K., Goldberg C. B. (2010). Asymmetrical demography effects on psychological climate for gender diversity: differential effects of leader gender and work unit gender composition among Swedish doctors. Hum. Relat. 63 1661–1685. 10.1177/0018726710369397 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konrad A. M., Linnehan F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Acad. Manag. J. 38 787–820. 10.2307/256746 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozlowski S. W., Doherty M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: examination of a neglected issue. J. Appl. Psychol. 74 546–553. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.546 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kristof-Brown A. L., Zimmerman R. D., Johnson E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 58 281–342. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulik C. T., Bainbridge H. T. J. (2005). “Psychological perspectives on workplace diversity,” in Handbook of Workplace Diversity eds Konrad A. M., Prasad P., Pringle J. K. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; ) 25–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M., Mizrachi N. (2012). Ordinary people doing extraordinary things: responses to stigmatization in comparative perspective. Ethn. Racial Stud. 35 365–381. 10.1080/01419870.2011.589528 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazear E. P., Rosen S. (1990). Male-female wage differentials in job ladders. J. Labor Econ. 8 106–123. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.06.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leskinen E. A., Cortina L. M., Kabat D. B. (2011). Gender harassment: broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law Hum. Behav. 35 25–39. 10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitin T., Quinn R. P., Staines G. L. (1971). Sex discrimination against the American working woman. Am. Behav. Sci. 15 237–254. 10.1177/000276427101500207 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Oxford: Harpers. [ Google Scholar ]
• LexisNexis. (2010). Mealy’s Daily News Update: Pharmaceutical Firm Settles Gender Bias Class Claims for $ 175 Million. Available at: http://www.lexis.com [accessed July 15, 2010] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linehan M., Scullion H. (2008). The development of female global managers: the role of mentoring and networking. J. Bus. Ethics 83 29–40. 10.1007/s10551-007-9657-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lips H. M. (2003). The gender pay gap: concrete indicator of women’s progress toward equality. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 3 87–109. 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2003.00016.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyness K. S., Thompson D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 359–375. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.359 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Major B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: the role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 26 293–355. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60156-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Major B., Quinton W. J., Schmader T. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39 220–231. 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00547-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Major B., Schmader T. (2001). “Legitimacy and the construal of social disadvantage,” in The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations eds Jost J. T., Major B. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ) 176–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manne A. (2001). Women’s preferences, fertility and family policy: the case for diversity. People Place 9 6–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mansfield P., Koch P., Henderson J., Vicary J., Cohn M., Young E. (1991). The job climate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occupations. Sex Roles 25 63–79. 10.1007/BF00289317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marini M. M. (1989). Sex differences in earnings in the United States. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 15 343–380. 10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.002015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martell R. F. (1991). Sex bias at work: the effects of attentional and memory demands on performance ratings of men and women. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21 1939–1960. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00515.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martell R. F., Lane D. M., Emrich C. (1996). Male-female differences: a computer simulation. Am. Psychol. 51 157–158. 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.157 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins L. L., Eddleston K. A., Veiga J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 45 399–409. 10.2307/3069354 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins L. L., Parsons C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: the role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 865–875. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.865 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masser B. M., Abrams D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: the consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles 51 609–615. 10.1007/s11199-004-5470-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maume D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work Occup. 26 483–509. 10.1177/0730888499026004005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald P., Backstrom S., Dear K. (2008). Reporting sexual harassment: claims and remedies. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 46 173–195. 10.1177/1038411108091757 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald S., Lin N., Ao D. (2009). Networks of Opportunity: gender, race, and job leads. Soc. Probl. 56 385–402. 10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.385 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGinley A. (2007). Babes and beefcake: exclusive hiring arrangements and sexy dress codes. Duke J. Gend. Law Policy 14 257–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre S., Moberg D. J., Posner B. Z. (1980). Preferential treatment in preselection decisions according to sex and race. Acad. Manag. J. 23 738–749. 10.2307/255560 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLaughlin H., Uggen C., Blackstone A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77 625–647. 10.1177/0003122412451728 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miner-Rubino K., Cortina L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women: implications for employees’ well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9 107–122. 10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.107 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell D., Hirschman R., Angelone D. J., Lilly R. S. (2004). A laboratory analogue for the study of peer sexual harassment. Psychol. Women Q. 28 194–203. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00136.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montañés P., de Lemus S., Bohner G., Megías J. L., Moya M., Garcia-Retamero R. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of benevolent sexism from mothers to daughters and its relation to daughters’ academic performance and goals. Sex Roles 66 468–478. 10.1007/s11199-011-0116-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore v. Alabama State University. (1996). 980 F. Supp. 426 (M.D. Ala. 1996) M.D. Alabama: United States District Court. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan W. B., Walker S. S., Hebl M. R., King E. B. (2013). A field experiment: reducing interpersonal discrimination toward pregnant job applicants. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 799–809. 10.1037/a0034040 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrison A. M., Von Glinow M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. Am. Psychol. 45 200–208. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss-Racusin C. A., Dovidio J. F., Brescoll V. L., Graham M. J., Handelsman J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109 16474–16479. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy K. R., Cleveland J. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murrell A. J., Olson J. E., Frieze I. H. (1995). Sexual harassment and gender discrimination: a longitudinal study of women managers. J. Soc. Issues 51 139–149. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01313.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neumark D. (1996). Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: an audit study. Q. J. Econ. 111 915–942. 10.2307/2946676 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nishii L. H., Raver J. L. (2003). “Collective climates for diversity: evidence from a field study,” in Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Orlando, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noe R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: a review and research agenda. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13 65–78. 10.5465/AMR.1988.4306784 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Offermann L. R., Malamut A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: the impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 885–893. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.885 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olian J. D., Schwab D. P., Haberfeld Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 41 180–195. 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90025-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostroff C., Atwater L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers’ compensation. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 725–740. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.725 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostroff C., Kinicki A. J., Muhammad R. S. (2012). “Organizational culture and climate,” in Handbook of Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2nd Edn Vol. 12 eds Schmitt N. W., Highhouse S. (New York, NY: Wiley and Sons; ) 643–676. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostroff C., Rothausen T. J. (1997). The moderating effect of tenure in person—environment fit: a field study in educational organizations. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 70 173–188. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00641.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perlow L. A. (1995). Putting the work back into work/family. Group Organ. Manag. 20 227–239. 10.1177/1059601195202009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry E. L., Davis-Blake A., Kulik C. T. (1994). Explaining gender-based selection decisions: a synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19 786–820. 10.5465/AMR.1994.9412190219 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson T., Morgan L. A. (1995). Separate and unequal: occupation-establishment sex segregation and gender wage gap. Am. J. Sociol. 101 329–365. 10.1086/230727 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pryor J. B. (1995). The psychosocial impact of sexual harassment on women in the US Military. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 17 581–603. 10.1207/s15324834basp1704_9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pryor J. B., Giedd J. L., Williams K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. J. Soc. Issues 51 69–84. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01309.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pryor J. B., LaVite C. M., Stoller L. M. (1993). A social and psychological analysis of sexual harassment: the person/situation interaction. J. Vocat. Behav. 42 68–83. 10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragins B. R., Cornwall J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 1244–1261. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1244 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragins B. R., Sundstrom E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: a longitudinal perspective. Psychol. Bull. 105 51–88. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.51 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reilly K. T., Wirjanto T. S. (1999). Does more mean less? The male/female wage gap and the proportion of females at the establishment level. Can. J. Econ. 32 906–929. 10.2307/136410 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reskin B. F., McBrier D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65 210–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberson L., Galvin B. M., Charles A. C. (2007). When group identities matter: bias in performance appraisal. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1 617–650. 10.1080/078559818 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen B., Jerdee T. H. (1974). Effects of applicant’s sex and difficulty of job on evaluations of candidates for management positions. J. Appl. Psychol. 59 511–512. 10.1037/h0037323 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth P. L., Purvis K. L., Bobko P. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. J. Manag. 38 719–739. 10.1177/0149206310374774 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudman L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 629–645. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudman L. A., Kilianski S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 1315–1328. 10.1177/0146167200263001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudman L. A., Phelan J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28 61–79. 10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudman L. A., Moss-Racusin C. A., Phelan J. E., Nauts S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 165–179. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggiero K. M., Taylor D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: how disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimination that confronts them. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68 826–838. 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.826 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell B. L., Trigg K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: an examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles 50 565–573. 10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rynes S., Rosen B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Pers. Psychol. 48 247–270. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01756.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salvaggio A. N., Streich M., Hopper J. E. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and applicant evaluations: effects on ambiguous applicants. Sex Roles 61 621–633. 10.1007/s11199-009-9640-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanchez J. I., De La Torre P. (1996). A second look at the relationship between rating and behavioral accuracy in performance appraisal. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 3–10. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schein E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership , Vol. 2 New York, NY: Jossey-Bass [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmader T., Johns M., Forbes C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychol. Rev. 115 336–356. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt M. T., Branscombe N. R., Kobrynowicz D., Owen S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28 197–210. 10.1177/0146167202282006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt M. T., Branscombe N. R., Postmes T., Garcia A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 140 921–948. 10.1037/a0035754 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider B. (1975). Organizational climates: an essay. Pers. Psychol. 28 447–479. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01386.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider B. (1983). “The attraction–selection–attrition framework,” in Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models eds Cameron K. S., Whetten D. A. (New York, NY: Academic Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider B. (1987). The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 40 437–453. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider B., Ehrhart M. G., Macey W. H. (2011). “Organizational climate research: achievements and the road ahead,” in The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate 2nd Edn eds Ashkanasy N. M., Wilderom C. P. M., Peterson M. F. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ) 29–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider K. T., Swan S., Fitzgerald L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: empirical evidence from two organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 401–415. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.401 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneyer K. L. (1998). Hooting: public and popular discourse about sex discrimination. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform 31 551–636. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz M. D., DeKeseredy W. S. (2000). Aggregation bias and woman abuse: variations by male peer support, region, language, and school type. J. Interpersh. Violence 15 555–565. 10.1177/088626000015006001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheltzer J. M., Smith J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. PNAS 111 10107–10112. 10.1073/pnas.1403334111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith P. C., Kendall L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: an approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 47 149–155. 10.1037/h0047060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder K. A., Green A. I. (2008). Revisiting the glass escalator: the case of gender segregation in a female dominated occupation. Soc. Probl. 55 271–299. 10.1525/sp.2008.55.2.271 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Son Hing L. S. (2012). Responses to stigmatization: the moderating roles of primary and secondary appraisals. Du Bois Rev. 9 149–168. 10.10170/S1742058X11000592 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Son Hing L. S., Bobocel D. R., Zanna M. P. (2002). Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: making concessions in the face of discrimination. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83 493–509. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.493 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Son Hing L. S., Bobocel D. R., Zanna M. P., Garcia D. M., Gee S. S., Orazietti K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 433–450. 10.1037/a0024618 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Son Hing L. S., Chung-Yan G. A., Hamilton L. K., Zanna M. P. (2008). A two-dimensional model that employs explicit and implicit attitudes to characterize prejudice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94 971–987. 10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.971 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Son Hing L. S., Zanna M. P. (2010). “Individual differences,” in The Sage Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination eds Dovidio J. F., Hewstone M., Glick P., Esses V. (London: SAGE Publications Ltd.) 163–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer S. J., Steele C. M., Quinn D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35 4–28. 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spreitzer G. M., McCall M. W., Mahoney J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 6–29. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stangor C., Lynch L., Duan C., Glass B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62 207–218. 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stangor C., Swim J. K., Sechrist G. B., DeCoster J., Van Allen K. L., Ottenbreit A. (2003). Ask, answer, and announce: three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 14 277–311. 10.1080/10463280340000090 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinpreis R. E., Anders K. A., Ritzke D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: a national empirical study. Sex Roles 41 509–528. 10.1023/A:1018839203698 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone P., Lovejoy M. (2004). Fast-track women and the “choice” to stay home. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 596 62–83. 10.1177/0002716204268552 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stroh L. K., Brett J. M., Reilly A. H. (1992). All the right stuff: a comparison of female and male managers’ career progression. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 251–260. 10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.251 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swidler A. (1986). Culture in action: symbols and strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51 273–286. 10.2307/2095521 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas-Hunt M. C., Phillips K. W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30 1585–1598. 10.1177/0146167204271186 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tosi H. L., Einbender S. W. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: a meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. J. 28 712–723. 10.2307/256127 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triana M. D. C., García M. F. (2009). Valuing diversity: a group-value approach to understanding the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity. J. Organ. Behav. 30 941–962. 10.1002/job.598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triana M. D. C., García M. F., Colella A. (2010). Managing diversity: how organizational efforts to support diversity moderate the effects of perceived racial discrimination on affective commitment. Pers. Psychol. 63 817–843. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01189.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trice H. M., Beyer J. M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui A. S., O’Reilly C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Acad. Manag. J. 32 402–423. 10.2307/256368 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical_abstract.html [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2003). Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference Between Men’s and Women’s Earnings (GAO-04-35). Available at: http://www.gao.gov [ Google Scholar ]
• van Knippenberg D., De Dreu C. K., Homan A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 1008–1022. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Zomeren M., Postmes T., Spears R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a qualitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 134 505–535. 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velez et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Crop et al. (2010). No. 04 Civ. 9194 (S.D. N.Y., May 19, 2010). [ Google Scholar ]
• Vescio T. K., Gervais S. J., Snyder M., Hoover A. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: the stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 658–672. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.658 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vorauer J. D., Kumhyr S. M. (2001). Is this about you or me? Self-versus other-directed judgments and feelings in response to intergroup interaction. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27 706–719. 10.1177/0146167201276006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes. (2004/2011). 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2001) aff’d 509 F.3d. 1168 (9C 2007) aff’d 603 F.3d 571 (9C 2010) rev’d 564 U.S. ___ (2011), Docket No. 10–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welle B., Heilman M. E. (2005). “Formal and informal discrimination against women at work: the role of gender stereotypes,” in Research in Social Issues in Management eds Steiner D., Gilliland S. W., Skarlicki D. (Westport, CT: Information Age Publishers; ) 23–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Westall R. (2015). Restaurant Dress Codes Open to Sexual Discrimination Complaints. CBC. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/restaurant-dress-codes-open-to-sexual-discrimination-complaints-1.3012522 [accessed March 31, 2015] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Soc. Probl. 39 253–267. 10.2307/3096961 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams J. C. (2003). Beyond the glass ceiling: the maternal wall as a barrier to gender equality. T. Jefferson L. Rev. 26 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willness C. R., Steel P., Lee K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Pers. Psychol. 60 127–162. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Word C. O., Zanna M. P., Cooper J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10 109–120. 10.1016/0022-1031(74)90059-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright P., Ferris S. P., Hiller J. S., Kroll M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: effects on stock price valuation. Acad. Manag. J. 38 272–287. 10.2307/256736 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright P. M., McMahan G. C., McWilliams A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 5 301–326. 10.1080/09585199400000020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright S. C. (2001). “Strategic collective action: social psychology and social change,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes eds Brown R., Gaertner S. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; ) 409–430. 10.1002/9780470693421.ch20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright S. C., Lubensky M. E. (2009). “The struggle for social equality: collective action versus prejudice reduction,” in Intergroup Misunderstandings: Impact of Divergent Social Realities eds Demoulin S., Leyens J. P., Dovidio J. F. (New York, NY: Psychology Press; ) 291–310. [ Google Scholar ]

Exploring Theories of Workplace Gender Inequality and Its Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review

• October 2020
• 11(3):727-743
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Sambalpur University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• J BUS ETHICS

• SOC BEHAV PERSONAL
• Xinsheng Jiang

• Alice H. Eagly

• David Grusky

• Henri Tajfel
• John C Turner

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Help & FAQ

Gender stereotypes and workplace bias

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

This paper focuses on the workplace consequences of both descriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men are like) and prescriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men should be like), and their implications for women's career progress. Its central argument is that gender stereotypes give rise to biased judgments and decisions, impeding women's advancement. The paper discusses how descriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias because of the negative performance expectations that result from the perception that there is a poor fit between what women are like and the attributes believed necessary for successful performance in male gender-typed positions and roles. It also discusses how prescriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias by creating normative standards for behavior that induce disapproval and social penalties when they are directly violated or when violation is inferred because a woman is successful. Research is presented that tests these ideas, considers specific career consequences likely to result from stereotype-based bias, and identifies conditions that exaggerate or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• Social Psychology
• Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
• Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Access to Document

• 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Gender Stereotypes Business & Economics 100%
• Work Place Business & Economics 74%
• Workplace Medicine & Life Sciences 70%
• stereotype Social Sciences 60%
• workplace Social Sciences 53%
• gender Social Sciences 36%
• trend Social Sciences 35%
• Sexism Medicine & Life Sciences 33%

T1 - Gender stereotypes and workplace bias

AU - Heilman, Madeline E.

N2 - This paper focuses on the workplace consequences of both descriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men are like) and prescriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men should be like), and their implications for women's career progress. Its central argument is that gender stereotypes give rise to biased judgments and decisions, impeding women's advancement. The paper discusses how descriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias because of the negative performance expectations that result from the perception that there is a poor fit between what women are like and the attributes believed necessary for successful performance in male gender-typed positions and roles. It also discusses how prescriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias by creating normative standards for behavior that induce disapproval and social penalties when they are directly violated or when violation is inferred because a woman is successful. Research is presented that tests these ideas, considers specific career consequences likely to result from stereotype-based bias, and identifies conditions that exaggerate or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.

AB - This paper focuses on the workplace consequences of both descriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men are like) and prescriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men should be like), and their implications for women's career progress. Its central argument is that gender stereotypes give rise to biased judgments and decisions, impeding women's advancement. The paper discusses how descriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias because of the negative performance expectations that result from the perception that there is a poor fit between what women are like and the attributes believed necessary for successful performance in male gender-typed positions and roles. It also discusses how prescriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias by creating normative standards for behavior that induce disapproval and social penalties when they are directly violated or when violation is inferred because a woman is successful. Research is presented that tests these ideas, considers specific career consequences likely to result from stereotype-based bias, and identifies conditions that exaggerate or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880038775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880038775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84880038775

SN - 0191-3085

JO - Research in Organizational Behavior

JF - Research in Organizational Behavior

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• Supplements
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Gender Stereotypes?

• How They Develop
• How to Combat

Gender stereotypes are preconceived, usually generalized views about how members of a certain gender do or should behave, or which traits they do or should have. They are meant to reinforce gender norms, typically in a binary way ( masculine vs. feminine ).

Gender stereotypes have far-reaching effects on all genders.

Read on to learn about how gender stereotypes develop, the effects of gender stereotypes, and how harmful gender stereotypes can be changed.

Davin G Photography / Getty Images

Meaning of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are ideas about how members of a certain gender do or should be or behave. They reflect ingrained biases based on the social norms of that society. Typically, they are considered as binary (male/female and feminine/masculine).

By nature, gender stereotypes are oversimplified and generalized. They are not accurate and often persist even when there is demonstrable evidence that contradict them. They also tend to ignore the fluidity of gender and nonbinary gender identities.

Classification of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes have two components, which are:

• Descriptive : Beliefs about how people of a certain gender do act, and their attributes
• Prescriptive : Beliefs about how people of a specific gender should act and attributes they should have

Gender stereotypes can be positive or negative. This doesn’t mean good or bad—even stereotypes that seem “flattering” can have harmful consequences.

• Positive gender stereotypes : Describe behaviors or attributes that align with accepted stereotypical ideas for that gender, and that people of that gender are encouraged to display (for example, girls should play with dolls and boys should play with trucks)
• Negative gender stereotypes : Describe behaviors or attributes that are stereotypically undesirable for that gender and that people from that gender are discouraged from displaying (such as women shouldn’t be assertive, or men shouldn’t cry)

The attribute is undesirable for all genders but more accepted in a particular gender than others. For example, arrogance and aggression are unpleasant in all genders but are tolerated more in men and boys than in women, girls, or nonbinary people .

Gender stereotypes tend to be divided into these two generalized themes:

• Communion : This stereotype orients people to others. It includes traits such as compassionate, nurturing, warm, and expressive, which are stereotypically associated with girls/women/femininity.
• Agency : This stereotype orients people to the self and is motivated by goal attainment. It includes traits such as competitiveness, ambition, and assertiveness, which are stereotypically associated with boys/men/masculinity.

Basic types of gender stereotypes include:

• Personality traits : Such as expecting women to be nurturing and men to be ambitious
• Domestic behaviors : Such as expecting women to be responsible for cooking, cleaning, and childcare, while expecting men to do home repairs, pay bills, and fix the car
• Occupations : Associates some occupations such as childcare providers and nurses with women and pilots and engineers with men
• Physical appearance : Associates separate characteristics for women and men, such as women should shave their legs or men shouldn’t wear dresses

Gender stereotypes don’t exist in a vacuum. They can intersect with stereotypes and prejudices surrounding a person’s other identities and be disproportionately harmful to different people. For example, a Black woman experiences sexism and racism , and also experiences unique prejudice from the intersectionality of sexism and racism that a White woman or Black man would not.

Words to Know

• Gender : Gender is a complex system involving roles, identities, expressions, and qualities that have been given meaning by a society. Gender is a social construct separate from sex assigned at birth.
• Gender norms : Gender norms are what a society expects from certain genders.
• Gender roles : These are behaviors, actions, social roles, and responsibilities a society views as appropriate or inappropriate for certain genders.
• Gender stereotyping : This ascribes the stereotypes of a gender group to an individual from that group.
• Self-stereotyping vs. group stereotyping : This is how a person views themselves compared to how they view the gender group they belong to (for example, a woman may hold the belief that women are better caregivers than men, but not see herself as adept in a caregiving role).

How Gender Stereotypes Develop

We all have unconscious biases (assumptions our subconscious makes about people based on groups that person belongs to and our ingrained associations with those groups). Often, we aren’t even aware we have them or how they influence our behavior.

Gender stereotyping comes from unconscious biases we have about gender groups.

We aren’t preprogrammed at birth with these biases and stereotypes. Instead, they are learned through repeated and ongoing messages we receive.

Gender roles, norms, and expectations are learned by watching others in our society, including our families, our teachers and classmates, and the media. These roles and the stereotypes attached to them are reinforced through interactions starting from birth. Consciously or not, adults and often other children will reward behavior or attributes that are in line with expectations for a child’s gender, and discourage behavior and attributes that are not.

Some ways gender stereotypes are learned and reinforced in childhood include:

• How adults dress children
• Toys and play activities offered to children
• Children observing genders in different roles (for example, a child may see that all of the teachers at their daycare are female)
• Praise and criticism children receive for behaviors
• Encouragement to gravitate toward certain subjects in school (such as math for boys and language arts for girls)
• Anything that models and rewards accepted gender norms

Children begin to internalize these stereotypes quite early. Research has shown that as early as elementary school, children reflect similar prescriptive gender stereotypes as adults, especially about physical appearance and behavior.

While all genders face expectations to align with the stereotypes of their gender groups, boys and men tend to face harsher criticism for behavior and attributes that are counterstereotypical than do girls and women. For example, a boy who plays with a doll and wears a princess dress is more likely to be met with a negative reaction than a girl who wears overalls and plays with trucks.

The Hegemonic Myth

The hegemonic myth is the false perception that men are the dominant gender (strong and independent) while women are weaker and need to be protected.

Gender stereotypes propagate this myth.

Effects of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes negatively impact all genders in a number of ways.

Nonbinary Genders

For people who are transgender / gender nonconforming (TGNC), gender stereotypes can lead to:

• Feelings of confusion and discomfort
• A low view of self-worth and self-respect
• Transphobia (negative feelings, actions, and attitudes toward transgender people or the idea of being transgender, which can be internalized)
• Negative impacts on mental health
• Struggles at school

Unconscious bias plays a part in reinforcing gender stereotypes in the classroom. For example:

• Educators may be more likely to praise girls for being well-behaved, while praising boys for their ideas and comprehension.
• Boys are more likely to be viewed as being highly intelligent, which influences choices. One study found girls as young as 6 avoiding activities that were labeled as being for children who are “really, really smart.”
• Intentional or unintentional steering of children toward certain subjects influences education and future employment.

In the Workforce

While women are in the workforce in large numbers, gender stereotypes are still at play, such as:

• Certain occupations are stereotypically gendered (such as nursing and teaching for women and construction and engineering for men).
• Occupations with more female workers are often lower paid and have fewer opportunities for promotion than ones oriented towards men.
• More women are entering male-dominated occupations, but gender segregation often persists within these spaces with the creation of female-dominated subsets (for example, pediatrics and gynecology in medicine, or human resources and public relations in management).
• Because men face harsher criticism for displaying stereotypically feminine characteristics than women do for displaying stereotypically male characteristics, they may be discouraged from entering female-dominated professions such as early childhood education.

Despite both men and women being in the workforce, women continue to be expected to (and do) perform a disproportionate amount of housework and taking care of children than do men.

Gender-Based Violence

Gender stereotypes can contribute to gender-based violence.

• Men who hold more traditional gender role beliefs are more likely to commit violent acts.
• Men who feel stressed about their ability to meet male gender norms are more likely to commit inter-partner violence .
• Trans people are more likely than their cisgender counterparts to experience discrimination and harassment, and they are twice as likely to engage in suicidal thoughts and actions than cisgender members of the Queer community.

Stereotypes and different ways of socializing genders can affect health in the following ways:

• Adolescent boys are more likely than adolescent girls to engage in violent or risky behavior.
• Mental health issues are more common in girls than boys.
• The perceived “ideal” of feminine slenderness and masculine muscularity can lead to health issues surrounding body image .
• Gender stereotypes can discourage people from seeking medical help or lead to missed diagnosis (such as eating disorders in males ).

Globally, over 575 million girls live in countries where inequitable gender norms contribute to a violation of their rights in areas such as:

• Employment opportunities
• Independence
• Safety from gender-based violence

How to Combat Gender Stereotypes

Some ways to combat gender stereotypes include:

• Examine and confront your own gender biases and how they influence your behavior, including the decisions you make for your children.
• Foster more involvement from men in childcare, both professionally and personally.
• Promote and support counterstereotypical hirings (such as science and technology job fairs aimed at women and campaigns to gain interest in becoming elementary educators for men).
• Confront and address bias in the classroom, including education for teachers on how to minimize gender stereotypes.
• Learn about each child individually, including their preferences.
• Allow children to use their chosen name and pronouns .
• Avoid using gender as a way to group children.
• Be mindful of language (for example, when addressing a group, use “children” instead of “boys and girls” and “families” instead of “moms and dads,”).
• Include books, toys, and other media in the classroom and at home that represent diversity in gender and gender roles.
• View toys as gender neutral, and avoid ones that promote stereotypes (for example, a toy that has a pink version aimed at girls).
• Ensure all children play with toys and games that develop a full set of social and cognitive skills.
• Promote gender neutrality in sports.
• Be mindful of advertising and the messaging marketing sends to children.
• Talk to children about gender, including countering binary thinking and gender stereotypes you come across.
• Take a look at the media your child engages with. Provide media that show all genders in a diversity of roles, different family structures, etc. Discuss any gender stereotyping you see.
• Tell children that it is OK to be themselves, whether that aligns with traditional gender norms or not (for example, it’s OK if a woman wants to be a stay-at-home parent, but it’s not OK to expect her to).
• Give children equal household chores regardless of gender.
• Teach all children how to productively handle their frustration and anger.
• Encourage children to step out of their comfort zone to meet new people and try activities they aren’t automatically drawn to.
• Put gender-neutral bathrooms in schools, workplaces, and businesses.
• Avoid assumptions about a person’s gender, including children.
• Take children to meet people who occupy counterstereotypical roles, such as a female firefighter.
• Speak up and challenge someone who is making sexist jokes or comments.

Movies That Challenge Gender Stereotypes

Not sure where to start? Common Sense Media has compiled a list of movies that defy gender stereotypes .

Gender stereotypes are generalized, preconceived, and usually binary ideas about behaviors and traits specific genders should or should not display. They are based on gender norms and gender roles, and stem from unconscious bias.

Gender stereotypes begin to develop very early in life through socialization. They are formed and strengthened through observations, experiences, and interactions with others.

Gender stereotypes can be harmful to all genders and should be challenged. The best way to start combating gender stereotypes is to examine and confront your own biases and how they affect your behavior.

A Word From Verywell

We all have gender biases, whether we realize it or not. That doesn’t mean we should let gender stereotypes go unchecked. If you see harmful gender stereotyping, point it out.

YWCA Metro Vancouver. Dating safe: how gender stereotypes can impact our relationships .

LGBTQ+ Primary Hub. Gender stereotyping .

Stanford University: Gendered Innovations. Stereotypes .

Koenig AM. Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly . Front Psychol . 2018;9:1086. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gender stereotypes .

Hentschel T, Heilman ME, Peus CV. The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves . Front Psychol . 2019;10:11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Eagly AH, Nater C, Miller DI, Kaufmann M, Sczesny S. Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018 . Am Psychol . 2020;75(3):301-315. doi:10.1037/amp0000494

Planned Parenthood. What are gender roles and stereotypes?

Institute of Physics. Gender stereotypes and their effect on young people .

France Stratégie. Report – Gender stereotypes and how to fight them: new ideas from France .

Bian L, Leslie SJ, Cimpian A. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests . Science . 2017;355(6323):389-391. doi:10.1126/science.aah6524

Save the Children. Gender roles can create lifelong cycle of inequality .

Girl Scouts. 6 everyday ways to bust gender stereotypes .

UNICEF. How to remove gender stereotypes from playtime .

Save the Children. Tips for talking with children about gender stereoptypes .

By Heather Jones Jones is a freelance writer with a strong focus on health, parenting, disability, and feminism.

Gender inequality in the workplace: factors, and how to combat it

Women spend years building a bridge to career success. but before they can cross it, they’re faced with the ugly troll underneath and the impossible riddle: what infects playgrounds and boardrooms alike it’s not a virus, and yet it’s an epidemic., the answer gender discrimination..

Gender inequality still exists at all levels of business and in all industries. Workplace sexism creates barriers to women’s success through unequal pay, gender stereotypes , and fewer promotions. To create parity for women in business, we first have to understand the factors contributing to gender inequality in the workplace, then find ways to combat it. Read on to learn how.

• What are the factors that contribute to gender inequality in the workplace?
• What are the consequences of workplace gender inequality?
• How to combat gender inequality at work ?
• How to empower a future of gender equality in the workplace?

1. What are the factors that contribute to gender inequality in the workplace?

Let’s dive into the ways sexism presents itself in organizational culture. 

Wage disparities

The gender pay gap is slowly closing, but pay equity is far from breaking the glass ceiling. Despite gender equality initiatives like Equal Pay Day , women in the U.S. are only paid 83.7% as much as men, on average. For women of color, this wage gap is even greater. 

Often, unequal pay starts with the hiring process. Women’s salary expectations are lower than those of equally qualified men, and they’re less likely to snag entry-level jobs . Because there are fewer women to promote to leadership positions within the company, the wage gap widens the further up the corporate ladder they climb. 

Lack of representation in leadership

Women are consistently barred from leadership positions by being passed over for promotions and development opportunities, but data shows that business benefits from having female executives.  

While very few women occupy leadership roles and management positions, the numbers are marginally improving. In 2023, femal e leadership in Fortune 500 companies topped 10% for the first time in the list’s 68-year history. But men still made up 83% of the 533 executive officers within the corporations listed in the S&P 100. 

Altrata’s 2022 Global Gender Diversity report found that only 28.2% of board members were female, and most of them held nonexecutive roles. This means that while these women were board members in title, they had no influence over company decision-making. Within the C-suite, just 5% of CEOS were women. 

Additionally, there’s an even more pronounced absence at the top of women of color and women in the LGBTQ+ community. Only two black women CEOs made the 2021 Fortune 500 list , and just 1.2% of the coveted spots on the list were other women of color. This lack of representation means there are fewer role models for young women to use as inspiration for their own career paths, and the cycle continues. 

Gender stereotype

A gender stereotype is a generalized assumption about a person’s characteristics that reinforces sexism. Racial stereotypes compound gender stereotyping for women of color, who often experience microaggressions within the workplace. These brief messages can be verbal, nonverbal, or environmental, and they communicate a negative message about a marginalized or underrepresented group.

One example of gender stereotypes in the workplace is how qualities like intelligence and agency are assigned to men versus women. Gender stereotypes often reframe these characteristics to portray women as “bossy,” whereas in men they’re considered good leadership qualities. Even seemingly innocuous gender stereotypes, such as the assumption that women are more nurturing, can undermine their contributions in the workplace.

Gender stereotypes disadvantage women’s input before it can even be shared. Because of the common unconscious bias that assumes women are more emotional (and, therefore, less rational) than men, a female employee’s idea might be overlooked in favor of one raised by her male counterpart. Or, a man might share the same idea that a woman shares at work and end up getting credit for it because he’s seen as more of a leader.

There’s no easy solution to battling gender discrimination. Conforming to gender stereotypes makes a woman appear less competent, but challenging them can mark her as difficult or aggressive. However, there are ways to reclaim the upper hand by learning, speaking up, and reacting in ways that shut down discrimination.

Sexual harassment

Female workers faced with sexual harassment have to navigate yet another obstacle to gender equality in their career path. 

The #MeToo movement revealed how pervasive sexual harassment is within women’s experience in the workplace. As a result, sexual harassment in work environments is now more likely to be reported — and victims are more likely to be believed. 

Work-life balance

Women often perform more invisible labor (such as common household chores and childcare) than their male partners do, creating an unequal balance between home and professional duties. As primary caregivers, moms are presumed to “struggle” to keep up with the demands of their jobs. As a result, female employees are less likely to be promoted or break through the glass ceiling.

Discover IMD’s Wellbeing in the Workplace Initiative, developing human-centric organizations »

2. What are the consequences of workplace gender inequality?

Gender discrimination within the workplace hinders personal success as well as company success. Below are just some of its negative impacts.

Economic drawbacks

Because women are often overlooked for promotions, they’re also stuck with lower compensation. As a result, female employees might be more likely to change jobs or industries or leave the labor force entirely. 

This undervaluation also impacts company success. When female employees’ contributions aren’t recognized, organizations miss out on ideas, projects, and sales that could have positioned them as industry leaders

Mental health implications

Sexism is also a mental health issue, threatening female employees’ well-being. Working as hard as their male counterparts without receiving the same recognition is draining. Discrimination and sexual harassment can quickly lead to burnout and a decline in productivity. Burnout from discrimination contributes to why women prefer to work remotely . After the pandemic, many women of color were especially hesitant to return to the office because of their experiences of isolation and discrimination there.

Stunted innovation

Diverse perspectives drive innovation. So, when women are excluded from key decision-making, research and development (R&D) can stagnate. 

Fostering gender diversity, equity, and inclusion results in increased employee engagement and better employee retention. When companies fully invest in their employees, they can spend less time hiring and training and more time innovating.

3. How to combat gender inequality at work ?

How can gender inequality be addressed in the workplace? By prioritizing the following actionable steps, companies can ensure that their DEI initiatives go beyond a marketing promise. 

Equal pay and transparency

States with pay transparency laws, such as New York, require employers to list salary ranges in the job description. This transparency supports salary parity by creating more competition for human resources and higher salary offers for employees.  Beyond pay, organizations can share the hard numbers of their employee demographics. Making these records publicly available holds C-suite leadership and human resources departments accountable for their diversity and inclusion plans.

Development and mentorship programs

Personal development and mentorship initiatives create more equitable workplaces for women . Creating a diversity and inclusion training program, like those that prioritize LGBTQ+ employees and racial minorities, results in more diversity within leadership roles. Allowing women to network with female role models in C-suite and management positions opens opportunities for them to take the same path. 

Companies can also offer and support leadership programs for women within the organization. This helps women develop the skills necessary for stepping into management and C-suite roles. 

Flexible work arrangements

Implementing flexible work hours within the organization means that fewer women are sidelined due to family obligations. Including options such as remote and part-time work also helps women maintain work-life balance. Additionally, providing parental leave for fathers gives women more childcare support and increases equality among parents. 

Anti-discrimination policies

Anti-discrimination policies within a company provide security for employees and attract more diverse talent. For example, creating standardized diversity and inclusion procedures for hiring can help prevent unconscious bias and the persistence of gender stereotypes. 

Internal anti-discrimination policies might also include protocols for reporting misconduct, discouraging backlash against female employees who lodge discrimination complaints.

Addressing unconscious bias

Unconscious bias training in the workplace creates awareness of the hidden assumptions that influence decision-making. When employees are trained on how to recognize gender bias, women are not only included in key conversations — their ideas are more likely to be heard.

4. How to empower a future of gender equality in the workplace?

Empowering a future of gender equality in the workplace requires a multifaceted approach that combines policy reform, cultural change, and education. Firstly, it’s crucial to establish strong anti-discrimination policies and ensure they are rigorously enforced. This includes creating transparent processes for reporting and addressing gender-based discrimination and harassment. Companies should also implement equitable hiring and promotion practices, focusing on diversity and inclusion at all levels of the organization.

In addition to policy changes, there must be a shift in workplace culture. This involves regular training and workshops for employees at all levels to foster an understanding of gender biases and how to combat them. Promoting a culture of respect and inclusion, where all voices are heard and valued, is essential. Mentorship programs can be particularly effective, especially when they support underrepresented genders in leadership development and career progression.

Moreover, flexible work arrangements and parental leave policies should be gender-neutral, encouraging both men and women to balance work and family responsibilities equally. This not only supports employees but also challenges traditional gender roles and stereotypes.

Finally, continuous evaluation and adaptation are key. Organizations should regularly assess their gender equality initiatives, gathering data and feedback to refine and improve their strategies. By committing to these practices, businesses can create a more equitable and productive workplace, paving the way for a future where gender equality is not just an aspiration but a reality.

Despite significant progress towards gender equality, there’s much more work to be done. That’s why at IMD , we’re steadfastly committed to fostering a more equitable work environment. Through our world-class education programs, we empower individuals and organizations to challenge gender bias, nurture inclusive leadership, and advance workplace equality.

Article: ⚽️ Four lessons from women’s football for advancing gender equality »

Subscribe for more great IMD content 💌

Subscribe now for exclusive content from imd.

Leadership is crucial to the success of individuals, teams, and organizations. It encompasses diverse skills, qualities, and approaches that empower individuals to guide and inspire others toward achieving common goals. As the business environment continues to evolve, so will the concept of leadership — adapting to meet the demands and challenges of a dynamic world. […]

Imagine navigating a ship through uncharted waters in the dark, with each crew member holding a piece of the map. That’s the challenge of leadership in today’s dynamic, ever-evolving business landscape. How do you, as a leader, unite these diverse pieces to chart a successful course? The answer lies in inclusive leadership. In a world […]

What if you could supercharge your leadership development in a way that’s tailored specifically to you? Today’s business leaders are under immense pressure to deliver. It’s not just about achieving quarterly targets; it’s about being a visionary, a strategic thinker, and a great manager.  That’s where executive coaching comes in. Far from being a sign […]

Do you believe each team member has a unique strength that can fuel innovation and solve complex challenges? If your answer is yes, you might want to explore the landscape of laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leadership, a term many have heard but few completely understand, is growing more relevant in today’s ever-changing, complex work environments. It […]

The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace

Martin and Barnard (2013) employ the grounded theory approach to explore females’ experiences in male-dominated professions. The use of the approach is evident as the researchers used unstructured interviews to collect data. The data were transcribed, and later initial codes were developed. After that, the axial coding was implemented. The researchers identified recurrent themes in each interview and compared the interviews as well as field notes and memos. The theory was developed on the basis of these themes.

Martin and Barnard (2013) focused on discriminatory practices in male-dominated professions and coping strategies used by females to overcome such issues. The data collection procedure involved unstructured interviews with five females working in a male-dominated environment. The researchers played an active role in the process as they carried out the interviews and transcribed the data.

In terms of the grounded theory approach, the researchers try to identify themes that recurrently appear in the participants’ accounts. These themes are used to develop a theory. In this study, the researchers manage to develop a sound theory concerning major obstacles females meet in a male-dominated working environment and the coping strategies they used. They note that gender stereotypes and discrimination are major challenges, and the utilization of femininity, adoption of some male characteristics, intrinsic motivation as well as mentorship are central coping strategies.

The researchers aimed at identifying central challenges females face and coping strategies they use to address the issues. The grounded theory approach is appropriate to meet the researcher’s goals. One of the major merits of the approach is the ability to identify recurrent themes, which are the answer to the researchers’ questions. It is possible to enhance the study with the help of the mixed method approach. It could be effective to test the theory by implementing a survey among females employed at several companies.

The gender stereotypes in the workplace were the focus of the discussion. Qualitative and quantitative studies exploring issues related to gender stereotypes in the working environment were analyzed. Some studies were based on the experimental while others were based on quasi-experimental approaches. Thus, qualitative studies identified particular challenges women face, discriminatory practices and stereotypes that exist, and so on. Quantitative studies revealed the extent to which these trends affect people’s lives as well as the way different trends and opinions correlate.

The qualitative methodology allowed researchers to identify some persistent trends and opinions while quantitative methods provided quantifiable evidence to support some theories. The strength of the qualitative research method is its depth and focus. However, its major limitation is the inability to generalize the findings to wide populations. The strength of the quantitative method is that it provides particular numerical data to support or refute a hypothesis.

These data are generalizable which is another advantage. Nonetheless, the quantitative method can often provide too general data that cannot be applicable in all situations. For instance, such instrument as tests or surveys limit participants answers to particular options, and their ideas may remain concealed.

It is difficult to identify the most appropriate approach as each of them is beneficial in its own way. When it comes to gender issues, it is almost impossible to state that only one of the methods can be effective. Both approaches are applicable and can reveal different facets of the problem. Researchers should employ both methods to address issues related to gender stereotyping in the workplace and at home. It is vital to identify people’s ideas on the matter and reveal various trends existing in the society. It is also essential to identify the extent to which these trends affect people’s behavior. Numerical data can provide the necessary evidence to support the data obtained from qualitative studies.

Ethics is important in three domains that include academic writing, participants’ treatment, and research conduct. Each of these aspects is crucial for psychology as well as any other field. It is possible to note that ethics ensures the validity of the research. Thus, academic writing should be ethical as such issues as plagiarism or violations of copyright policies decreases the validity of the study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2012). Unethical treatment of the participants can lead to distorted data as participants may be afraid to share their true opinions if their confidentiality is not ensured (Iphofen, 2016). It is also crucial to make sure that the research is conducted with a focus on such ethical values as integrity, openness, objectivity.

People involved in the sphere of psychology have to pay a lot of attention to ethical issues. Working with people may lead to various issues related to ethics. Thus, clients often face various challenges and the development of rapport is crucial as the practitioner may help a client who trusts him/her. Confidentiality is one of the most burning issues related to this area as people are reluctant to share if they suspect that their secrets can be revealed.

At that, even the development of family relations depends on the ability to make ethical decisions. Again, unethical behavior destroys the trust that is essential. Thus, ethical behavior is of a paramount importance of any individual.

It is possible to note that the three ethical contexts mentioned above contribute significantly to scientific merit. One of the major ways this contribution is manifested is the ensured validity of the research. Ethical conduct in all the three domains helps the researcher to collect relevant data and come to valid conclusions that are likely to be proved during further studies.

Reference List

Iphofen, R. (2016). Ethical decision making in social research: A practical guide . New York, NY: Springer.

Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2012). Practical research: Planning and Design . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Martin, P., & Barnard, A. (2013). The experience of women in male-dominated occupations: A constructivist grounded theory inquiry . SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde , 39 (2), 1-12. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, March 11). The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace. https://studycorgi.com/the-gender-stereotypes-in-the-workplace/

"The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace." StudyCorgi , 11 Mar. 2021, studycorgi.com/the-gender-stereotypes-in-the-workplace/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace'. 11 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace." March 11, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-gender-stereotypes-in-the-workplace/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace." March 11, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-gender-stereotypes-in-the-workplace/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace." March 11, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-gender-stereotypes-in-the-workplace/.

This paper, “The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: March 11, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the Literature on Gender Stereotypes, Objectification and Sexualization

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi 10, 10124 Turin, Italy.
• PMID: 37239498
• PMCID: PMC10218532
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20105770

Media representations play an important role in producing sociocultural pressures. Despite social and legal progress in civil rights, restrictive gender-based representations appear to be still very pervasive in some contexts. The article explores scientific research on the relationship between media representations and gender stereotypes, objectification and sexualization, focusing on their presence in the cultural context. Results show how stereotyping, objectifying and sexualizing representations appear to be still very common across a number of contexts. Exposure to stereotyping representations appears to strengthen beliefs in gender stereotypes and endorsement of gender role norms, as well as fostering sexism, harassment and violence in men and stifling career-related ambitions in women. Exposure to objectifying and sexualizing representations appears to be associated with the internalization of cultural ideals of appearance, endorsement of sexist attitudes and tolerance of abuse and body shame. In turn, factors associated with exposure to these representations have been linked to detrimental effects on physical and psychological well-being, such as eating disorder symptomatology, increased body surveillance and poorer body image quality of life. However, specificities in the pathways from exposure to detrimental effects on well-being are involved for certain populations that warrant further research.

Keywords: gender; media; objectification; representation; sexualization; stereotypes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

• Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale. Liss M, Erchull MJ, Ramsey LR. Liss M, et al. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2011 Jan;37(1):55-68. doi: 10.1177/0146167210386119. Epub 2010 Oct 14. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2011. PMID: 20947776
• Self-subjugation among women: exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Calogero RM, Jost JT. Calogero RM, et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Feb;100(2):211-28. doi: 10.1037/a0021864. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011. PMID: 21186932
• Gender Stereotypes and Discrimination: How Sexism Impacts Development. Brown CS, Stone EA. Brown CS, et al. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2016;50:105-33. doi: 10.1016/bs.acdb.2015.11.001. Epub 2016 Jan 27. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2016. PMID: 26956071 Review.
• The Role of Social Presence in Relationships Among Gender Stereotypes, Sexism, and In-Game Sexual Harassment Among Young Korean Gamers. Oh HJ, Choi MY. Oh HJ, et al. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2023 Jun;26(6):432-439. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2022.0265. Epub 2023 May 24. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2023. PMID: 37222760
• Gender Stereotypes. Ellemers N. Ellemers N. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018 Jan 4;69:275-298. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719. Epub 2017 Sep 27. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018. PMID: 28961059 Review.
• Martin C.L., Ruble D.N. Patterns of Gender Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010;61:353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Giles J.W., Heyman G. Young Children’s Beliefs About the Relationship Between Gender and Aggressive Behavior. Child Dev. 2005;76:107–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00833.x. - DOI - PubMed
• Signorella M.L., Bigler R.S., Liben L.S. Developmental Differences in Children’s Gender Schemata about Others: A Meta-analytic Review. Dev. Rev. 1993;13:147–183. doi: 10.1006/drev.1993.1007. - DOI
• Stoller R.J. Sex and Gender. Science House; Sydney, Australia: 1968.
• Eagly A.H., Wood W. Social Role Theory. In: Van Lange P., Kruglanski A., Higgins E., editors. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd.; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: 2012. pp. 458–476. - DOI

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Grants and funding

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• What are gender roles and stereotypes?
• Sex and Gender Identity
• What's intersex?

Our society has a set of ideas about how we expect men and women to dress, behave, and present themselves.

What are gender roles?

Gender roles in society means how we’re expected to act, speak, dress, groom, and conduct ourselves based upon our assigned sex. For example, girls and women are generally expected to dress in typically feminine ways and be polite, accommodating, and nurturing. Men are generally expected to be strong, aggressive, and bold.

Every society, ethnic group, and culture has gender role expectations, but they can be very different from group to group. They can also change in the same society over time. For example, pink used to be considered a masculine color in the U.S. while blue was considered feminine.

How do gender stereotypes affect people?

A stereotype is a widely accepted judgment or bias about a person or group — even though it’s overly simplified and not always accurate. Stereotypes about gender can cause unequal and unfair treatment because of a person’s gender. This is called sexism.

There are four basic kinds of gender stereotypes:

Personality traits — For example, women are often expected to be accommodating and emotional, while men are usually expected to be self-confident and aggressive.

Domestic behaviors — For example, some people expect that women will take care of the children, cook, and clean the home, while men take care of finances, work on the car, and do the home repairs.

Occupations — Some people are quick to assume that teachers and nurses are women, and that pilots, doctors, and engineers are men.

Physical appearance — For example, women are expected to be thin and graceful, while men are expected to be tall and muscular. Men and women are also expected to dress and groom in ways that are stereotypical to their gender (men wearing pants and short hairstyles, women wearing dresses and make-up.

Hyperfemininity is the exaggeration of stereotyped behavior that’s believed to be feminine. Hyperfeminine folks exaggerate the qualities they believe to be feminine. This may include being passive, naive, sexually inexperienced, soft, flirtatious, graceful, nurturing, and accepting.

Hypermasculinity is the exaggeration of stereotyped behavior that’s believed to be masculine. Hypermasculine folks exaggerate the qualities they believe to be masculine. They believe they’re supposed to compete with other men and dominate feminine folks by being aggressive, worldly, sexually experienced, insensitive, physically imposing, ambitious, and demanding.

These exaggerated gender stereotypes can make relationships between people difficult. Hyperfeminine folks are more likely to endure physical and emotional abuse from their partners. Hypermasculine folks are more likely to be physically and emotionally abusive to their partners.

Extreme gender stereotypes are harmful because they don’t allow people to fully express themselves and their emotions.  For example, it’s harmful to masculine folks to feel that they’re not allowed to cry or express sensitive emotions. And it’s harmful to feminine folks to feel that they’re not allowed to be independent, smart or assertive. Breaking down gender stereotypes allows everyone to be their best selves.

How can I fight gender stereotypes?

You probably see gender stereotypes all around you. You might also have seen or experienced sexism, or discrimination based on gender. There are ways to challenge these stereotypes to help everyone — no matter their gender or gender identity — feel equal and valued as people.

Point it out — Magazines, TV, film, and the Internet are full of negative gender stereotypes. Sometimes these stereotypes are hard for people to see unless they’re pointed out. Be that person! Talk with friends and family members about the stereotypes you see and help others understand how sexism and gender stereotypes can be hurtful.

Be a living example — Be a role model for your friends and family. Respect people regardless of their gender identity. Create a safe space for people to express themselves and their true qualities regardless of what society’s gender stereotypes and expectations are.

Speak up — If someone is making sexist jokes and comments, whether online or in person, challenge them.

Give it a try — If you want to do something that’s not normally associated with your gender, think about whether you’ll be safe doing it. If you think you will, give it a try. People will learn from your example.

If you’ve been struggling with gender or gender identity and expectations, you’re not alone. It may help you to talk to a trusted parent, friend, family member, teacher, or counselor.

Book an Appointment

Please enter your age and the first day of your last period for more accurate abortion options. Your information is private and anonymous.

Or call 1-800-230-7526

This website uses cookies

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors use cookies and other tools to collect, store, monitor, and analyze information about your interaction with our site to improve performance, analyze your use of our sites and assist in our marketing efforts. You may opt out of the use of these cookies and other tools at any time by visiting Cookie Settings . By clicking “Allow All Cookies” you consent to our collection and use of such data, and our Terms of Use . For more information, see our Privacy Notice .

Cookie Settings

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors, use cookies, pixels, and other tracking technologies to collect, store, monitor, and process certain information about you when you access and use our services, read our emails, or otherwise engage with us. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device. We use that information to make the site work, analyze performance and traffic on our website, to provide a more personalized web experience, and assist in our marketing efforts. We also share information with our social media, advertising, and analytics partners. You can change your default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of required cookies when utilizing our site; this includes necessary cookies that help our site to function (such as remembering your cookie preference settings). For more information, please see our Privacy Notice .

We use online advertising to promote our mission and help constituents find our services. Marketing pixels help us measure the success of our campaigns.

Performance

We use qualitative data, including session replay, to learn about your user experience and improve our products and services.

We use web analytics to help us understand user engagement with our website, trends, and overall reach of our products.

2024 Theses Doctoral

Understanding Consumer Emotions from User-Generated Content

Wu, Yinghao

This dissertation aims to provide a deeper understanding of consumer emotions from user-generated content. In the first essay of my dissertation, “Digital Therapy for Negative Consumption Experiences: The Impact of Emotional and Rational Reviews on Review Writers and Readers,” we examine whether the manner in which a consumer writes a review can help them recover from a negative consumption experience, as well as how this influences other review readers. To test these research questions, we use a multimethod approach and collect archival data, field data, and participants’ physiological responses as well as memory recall. We employ machine learning techniques to train multilabel classifiers with review textual data and categorize online reviews into one of the three types: emotional (feelings and emotions), rational (facts, beliefs, and thought processes), and integrated (the combination of the two). We first show that, similar to writing about traumatic life experiences, when a review writer writes an integrated review about a negative experience (compared to when they only express emotional or rational aspects), they feel better afterwards and are more likely to purchase again. We also show that integrated reviews do not any have adverse effects on review readers. Finally, in two controlled experiments, we examine the underlying mechanisms for this positive effect of writing an integrated review on review writers by collecting biophysiological response data (i.e., review writers’ blood pressure and pulse) and by analyzing thought listing data. The results show that writing an integrated review about a negative consumption experience appears to lead to catharsis and cognitive reappraisal of the negative experience, which in turn lead to better outcomes. This research shows that writing online reviews can serve as a digital therapy tool that helps consumers recover from negative consumer experiences and has positive benefits for the involved firms. This has important implications for the design of review systems and for firms, especially in situations where customers have negative experiences with their products and services. The first essay of my dissertation suggests that consumers can benefit by expressing emotions (together with rational thoughts) in their online reviews. In the second essay of my dissertation, “Are Emotions Gendered? Gender Stereotypes in Online Reviews,” we examine whether the domain of online reviews is inclusive enough to allow all consumers to feel free to express their emotions. In this research, we examine whether review readers’ reactions to reviews where writers express their emotion vary with the gender of the review writer. More specifically, we examine how gender stereotypes in general, and the belief that females are more emotional than males in particular, influences review readers’ reactions to reviews as well as the manner in which review writers construct their reviews. We find that even though the domain of online reviews is a relatively private and safe place for consumers to express their evaluations of products and services, a common feature of online review system designs, that is asking review writers to provide an avatar and/or names that might reflect their gender, leads to less favorable reactions to reviews written by women (vs. men) because of gender stereotypes. Further, when the stereotype that women are more emotional than men is made salient before review writing (versus when it is not), female review writers express less emotion, possibly because emotionality has negative associations such as being “irrational,” “overdramatic,” and “sensitive.” This finding is important because other research has shown that reviews that contain more emotion are evaluated more positively by review readers. Most importantly, while we provide evidence that this stereotype is believed and has a negative impact on review writers and readers, we show that it is not true in this context – females are no more emotional than men in review writing contexts.

• Consumer behavior
• Consumers--Psychology
• Sex differences (Psychology)
• Stereotypes (Social psychology)
• Business--Psychological aspects

This item is currently under embargo. It will be available starting 2029-05-22.

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world. There has been progress over the last decades, but the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.

Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and therefore also half of its potential. But gender inequality persists everywhere and stagnates social progress. On average, women in the labor market still earn 23 percent less than men globally and women spend about three times as many hours in unpaid domestic and care work as men.

Sexual violence and exploitation, the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and discrimination in public office, all remain huge barriers. All these areas of inequality have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: there has been a surge in reports of sexual violence, women have taken on more care work due to school closures, and 70% of health and social workers globally are women.

At the current rate, it will take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments.

Political leadership, investments and comprehensive policy reforms are needed to dismantle systemic barriers to achieving Goal 5 Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective and must be a key focus of national policies, budgets and institutions.

How much progress have we made?

International commitments to advance gender equality have brought about improvements in some areas: child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) have declined in recent years, and women’s representation in the political arena is higher than ever before. But the promise of a world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality, and where all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed, remains unfulfilled. In fact, that goal is probably even more distant than before, since women and girls are being hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Are they any other gender-related challenges?

Yes. Worldwide, nearly half of married women lack decision-making power over their sexual and reproductive health and rights. 35 per cent of women between 15-49 years of age have experienced physical and/ or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence.1 in 3 girls aged 15-19 have experienced some form of female genital mutilation/cutting in the 30 countries in Africa and the Middle East, where the harmful practice is most common with a high risk of prolonged bleeding, infection (including HIV), childbirth complications, infertility and death.

This type of violence doesn’t just harm individual women and girls; it also undermines their overall quality of life and hinders their active involvement in society.

Why should gender equality matter to me?

Regardless of where you live in, gender equality is a fundamental human right. Advancing gender equality is critical to all areas of a healthy society, from reducing poverty to promoting the health, education, protection and the well-being of girls and boys.

What can we do?

If you are a girl, you can stay in school, help empower your female classmates to do the same and fight for your right to access sexual and reproductive health services. If you are a woman, you can address unconscious biases and implicit associations that form an unintended and often an invisible barrier to equal opportunity.

If you are a man or a boy, you can work alongside women and girls to achieve gender equality and embrace healthy, respectful relationships.

You can fund education campaigns to curb cultural practices like female genital mutilation and change harmful laws that limit the rights of women and girls and prevent them from achieving their full potential.

The Spotlight Initiative is an EU/UN partnership, and a global, multi-year initiative focused on eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls – the world’s largest targeted effort to end all forms of violence against women and girls.

Facts and figures

Goal 5 targets.

• With only seven years remaining, a mere 15.4 per cent of Goal 5 indicators with data are “on track”, 61.5 per cent are at a moderate distance and 23.1 per cent are far or very far off track from 2030 targets.
• In many areas, progress has been too slow. At the current rate, it will take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments.
• Political leadership, investments and comprehensive policy reforms are needed to dismantle systemic barriers to achieving Goal 5. Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective and must be a key focus of national policies, budgets and institutions.
• Around 2.4 billion women of working age are not afforded equal economic opportunity. Nearly 2.4 Billion Women Globally Don’t Have Same Economic Rights as Men  
• 178 countries maintain legal barriers that prevent women’s full economic participation. Nearly 2.4 Billion Women Globally Don’t Have Same Economic Rights as Men
• In 2019, one in five women, aged 20-24 years, were married before the age of 18. Girls | UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023

5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere

5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation

5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation

5.4 Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate

5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decisionmaking in political, economic and public life

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

5.A  Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws

5.B Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women

5.C Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

He for She campaign

United Secretary-General Campaign UNiTE to End Violence Against Women

Every Woman Every Child Initiative

Spotlight Initiative

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

UN Population Fund: Gender equality

UN Population Fund: Female genital mutilation

UN Population Fund: Child marriage

UN Population Fund: Engaging men & boys

UN Population Fund: Gender-based violence

World Health Organization (WHO)

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Gender Statistics

Fast Facts: Gender Equality

Infographic: Gender Equality

The Initiative is so named as it brings focused attention to this issue, moving it into the spotlight and placing it at the centre of efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

An initial investment in the order of EUR 500 million will be made, with the EU as the main contributor. Other donors and partners will be invited to join the Initiative to broaden its reach and scope. The modality for the delivery will be a UN multi- stakeholder trust fund, administered by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office, with the support of core agencies UNDP, UNFPA and UN Women, and overseen by the Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General.

Related news

Press release| the world is failing girls and women, according to new un report.

Yinuo 2023-09-06T19:30:02-04:00 07 Sep 2023 |

The world is failing girls and women, according to new UN report New figure points to the need of an additional $360 billion in investment per year to achieve genderequality and women’s empowerment by 2030. [...]

Liberia, Mexico, Niger, Senegal and Sierra Leone to tackle barriers to the deployment of women in peace operations with the support of the UN Elsie Initiative Fund 

Vesna Blazhevska 2021-04-28T13:20:09-04:00 28 Apr 2021 |

PRESS RELEASE 28 APRIL 2021 MEDIA ENQUIRIES [email protected] Liberia, Mexico, Niger, Senegal and Sierra Leone to tackle barriers to the deployment of women in peace operations with the support of the UN Elsie Initiative [...]

Women’s job market participation stagnating at less than 50% for the past 25 years, finds UN report

Vesna Blazhevska 2020-10-20T15:06:56-04:00 20 Oct 2020 |

New York, 20 October – Less than 50% of working-age women are in the labour market, a figure that has barely changed over the last quarter of a century, according to a new UN report launched today. Unpaid domestic and care work falls disproportionately on women, restraining their economic potential as the COVID-19 pandemic additionally affects women’s jobs and livelihoods, the report warns.

Related videos

World oceans day event highlights immediate action to protect oceans.

UN World Oceans Day, celebrated on Friday at UN Headquarters in New York, focused on “opening minds, igniting senses, and inspiring possibilities” to protect marine life worldwide.  Read Full Story on UN News

Media advisory | Rethinking Disability Inclusion: A Global Call to Action

Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rethinking Disability Inclusion: A Global Call to Action Follow LIVE on UN Web TV At a time when the world is [...]

World heading towards new temperature records, UN weather watchdog warns

At least one of the years between now and 2028 will very likely set a new temperature record, breaking through the crucial 1.5°C temperature limit, the UN weather agency, WMO, said on Wednesday.  Read Full [...]

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Gender Roles — The Wife of Bath in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: A Feminist Analysis

The Wife of Bath in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales: a Feminist Analysis

• Categories: Gender Roles The Canterbury Tales

About this sample

Words: 647 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 647 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, body paragraph 1, body paragraph 2, body paragraph 3.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 531 words

1 pages / 681 words

3 pages / 1287 words

7 pages / 3217 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gender Roles

In the world of cinema, there are certain films that transcend mere entertainment and delve into the realm of cultural significance. "Thelma and Louise," directed by Ridley Scott and released in 1991, is one such film. A [...]

Jackson, S. (1948). The Lottery. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1948/06/26/the-lottery

In the realm of classic fairy tales, Cinderella undoubtedly reigns as one of the most beloved and enduring stories. However, the version presented by Jack Zipes in his essay, "Cinderella," challenges traditional interpretations [...]

John Steinbeck's short story "The Chrysanthemums" is a poignant exploration of gender roles, isolation, and the longing for fulfillment. Through the character of Elisa Allen, Steinbeck delves into the complexities of a woman's [...]

Caine, D. J., Caine, R. N., & Maffulli, N. (2006). Incidence and distribution of pediatric sport-related injuries. Clinical journal of sport medicine, 16(2), 109-117.Covassin, T., Moran, R., & Elbin, R. J. (2007). Sex [...]

Mulan (Ming-Na Wen), was a young girl of Chinese descent, who was uninterested in anything to do with traditional womanly duties or tasks. She was further concerned about the military draft, that demanded each family send a son [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free