gender discrimination 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

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Women in majority-male workplaces report higher rates of gender discrimination.

The gains women have made over the past several decades in labor force participation , wages and access to more lucrative positions have strengthened their position in the American workforce. Even so, there is gender imbalance in the workplace, and women who report that their workplace has more men than women have a very different set of experiences than their counterparts in work settings that are mostly female or have an even mix of men and women.

A plurality of women (48%) say they work in places where there are more women than men, while 18% say there are more men than women, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Similarly, 44% of men say their workplace is majority-male, and 19% say women outnumber men. About a third of women (33%) and men (36%) say both genders are about equally represented in their workplace.

The survey – conducted in 2017, prior to the recent outcry about sexual harassment by men in prominent positions – found that women employed in majority-male workplaces are more likely to say their gender has made it harder for them to get ahead at work, they are less likely to say women are treated fairly in personnel matters, and they report experiencing gender discrimination at significantly higher rates.

In addition, while about half of women who say their workplace is mostly male (49%) say sexual harassment is a problem where they work, a far smaller share of women who work in mostly female workplaces (32%) say the same.

Overall, most men (67%) and women (68%) say their gender has not made much of a difference in their job success. But it does make a difference for some workers, and women are about three times as likely as men (19% vs. 7%) to say their gender has made it harder for them to succeed at their job.

Among women, responses vary significantly depending on the gender balance at their workplace. Only 13% of those who say they work mainly with other women say their gender has made it harder for them to succeed at work. By contrast, 34% of those who say they work mainly with men say their gender has had a negative impact. Among those who work in a more balanced environment, 19% say their gender has made it harder for them to succeed.

There are big gaps as well in perceptions about how women are treated in the workplace and how much attention is paid to increasing gender diversity. Most women who work in majority-female workplaces say women are usually treated fairly where they work when it comes to recruitment and hiring (79%) and in opportunities for promotion and advancement (70%). Smaller shares, but still majorities, of women who say their workplace is balanced in terms of gender say women are treated fairly in these areas. Women who work in majority-male workplaces feel much differently: 48% say women are treated fairly where they work when it comes to recruitment and hiring, and even fewer (38%) say women are treated fairly in promotions and advancement.

Women who work mainly with men are also less likely than other female workers to say their workplace pays the right amount of attention to increasing gender diversity. Only 49% say this, compared with 78% of women who say there is an even gender mix where they work and 71% who work in female-dominated workplaces.

In addition, when asked how often they feel they have to prove themselves at work in order to be respected by their coworkers, 25% of women in majority-male workplaces say they have to do this all of the time, compared with 13% of women who work in majority-female workplaces.

Women in majority-male workplaces more likely to report gender discrimination

The survey included a series of items aimed at measuring specific types of gender discrimination in the workplace. Overall, women are more likely than men to report having experienced each of these things – from being passed over for desirable assignments to earning less than someone of the opposite gender doing the same job.

Similarly, women who work in majority-male workplaces are much more likely than those who work mainly with women to say they have experienced repeated small slights at work because of their gender (27% vs. 15%) or received less support from senior leaders than a man (24% vs. 12%).

There are also gaps in the shares saying they have felt isolated, been passed over for important assignments, been denied a promotion or been turned down for a job because of their gender. In each of these cases, the experiences of women in gender-balanced workplaces are similar to those in majority-female work environments.

There are modest differences along these lines in the shares of women who say they have been sexually harassed at work. Roughly one-in-five women who say their workplace is balanced in terms of men and women (21%) say they have been sexually harassed at work. And a similar share who work in female-dominated workplaces (20%) say the same. The share is higher among women who say they work mainly with men – 28% say they have been sexually harassed at work.

Women who work in majority-male workplaces are also significantly more likely than other women to say sexual harassment is a problem in their industry.

Gender segregation can be seen across occupations

The segregation of men and women across workplaces is partly rooted in differences in the occupations held by men and women. The U.S. workforce overall is majority male by a narrow margin – 53% of all workers were male in 2017, while 47% were female. But the gender composition of many occupations varies markedly from the overall distribution, and many economists believe this also contributes to the gender wage gap.

The occupations with the highest concentrations of women are in the health care, teaching or caregiving fields, according to the U.S. Department of Labor . Some examples are preschool or kindergarten teachers (where 98% of the workers are female), child care workers (96% female) and registered nurses (90% female).

The jobs with the highest concentrations of men tend to involve traditionally blue-collar fields such as heavy equipment operation and repair or construction, as well as computer and engineering occupations. For example, roughly 99% of automotive service technicians and mechanics are male, as are 98% of carpenters. In addition, about nine-in-ten mechanical engineers and roughly eight-in-ten computer programmers are male. (For more on women in STEM occupations, see “ Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity .”)

Although there may be differences in the occupations they hold , women who work in majority-male workplaces are not markedly different from other working women. They have a similar educational and racial and ethnic profile and a similar median age compared with women who say their workplaces are mostly female. So the differences in attitudes and workplace experiences are most likely not attributable to demographic differences.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

For Women’s History Month, a look at gender gains – and gaps – in the U.S.

Key takeaways on americans’ views on gender equality a century after u.s. women gained the right to vote, most americans support gender equality, even if they don’t identify as feminists, activism on gender equality differs widely by education among democratic women, 61% of u.s. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well; many see feminism as empowering, polarizing, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths

Contributed equally to this work with: Catherine Verniers, Jorge Vala

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

• Catherine Verniers, 

• Published: January 9, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657
• Reader Comments

18 Jul 2018: Verniers C, Vala J (2018) Correction: Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PLOS ONE 13(7): e0201150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201150 View correction

The issue of gender equality in employment has given rise to numerous policies in advanced industrial countries, all aimed at tackling gender discrimination regarding recruitment, salary and promotion. Yet gender inequalities in the workplace persist. The purpose of this research is to document the psychosocial process involved in the persistence of gender discrimination against working women. Drawing on the literature on the justification of discrimination, we hypothesized that the myths according to which women’s work threatens children and family life mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to a mother’s career. We tested this hypothesis using the Family and Changing Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme. The dataset contained data collected in 1994 and 2012 from 51632 respondents from 18 countries. Structural equation modellings confirmed the hypothesised mediation. Overall, the findings shed light on how motherhood myths justify the gender structure in countries promoting gender equality.

Citation: Verniers C, Vala J (2018) Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0190657. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657

Editor: Luís A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES

Received: October 6, 2017; Accepted: December 18, 2017; Published: January 9, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Verniers, Vala. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are available from the GESIS Data Archive (doi: 10.4232/1.2620 and doi: 10.4232/1.12661 ).

Funding: This work was conducted at the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal, and supported by a travel grant of the European Association for Social Psychology, http://www.easp.eu/ , and a travel grant of the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche en Psychologie Sociale, http://www.adrips.org/wp/ , attributed to the first author. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The latest release from the World Economic Forum—the Gender Gap Report 2016 [ 1 ]–indicates that in the past 10 years, the global gender gap across education and economic opportunity and politics has closed by 4%, while the economic gap has closed by 3%. Extrapolating this trajectory, the report underlines that it will take the world another 118 years—or until 2133 –to close the economic gap entirely. Gender inequalities are especially blatant in the workplace. For instance, on average women are more likely to work part-time, be employed in low-paid jobs and not take on management positions [ 2 , 3 ].

There is evidence that gender inequalities in the workplace stem, at least in part, from the discrimination directed against women. Indeed, several studies have documented personal discrimination against women by decision makers (for meta-analyses see [ 4 , 5 ], some of them having more specifically examined the role of the decision makers’ level of sexist attitudes on discriminatory practices. For instance, Masser and Abrams [ 6 ] found in an experimental study that the higher the participants scored in hostile sexism, the more they were likely to recommend a male candidate rather than a female one for a managerial position. In spite of consistent evidence that higher sexism is related to greater bias toward working women [ 7 ], little is known regarding the underlying processes linking sexism to discrimination. This question remains an important one, especially because the persistence of gender discrimination contradicts the anti-discrimination rules promoted in modern societies. In fact, the issue of gender equality in employment has given rise to numerous policies and institutional measures in advanced industrial countries, all aimed at tackling gender discrimination with respect to recruitment, promotion and job assignment. In the USA, for instance, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act provided the legal foundation for the implementation of anti-discrimination laws within the workplace. The Treaty on the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, all contain provisions relating to the promotion of equality between women and men in all areas, and the prohibition of discrimination on any ground, including sex. The member states of the European Union must comply with these provisions [ 8 ]. In this respect, some countries have incorporated legislation on equal treatment of women and men into general anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Great Britain), while other countries have opted for a specific gender equality act (e.g., Spain). Comparable policies have been implemented in the Asian-Pacific area, with countries including gender equality into broad anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Australia), and other countries having passed laws especially dedicated to addressing discrimination against women (e.g., Japan, the Philippines). The purpose of this research is to further explore the psychosocial process involved in the stubborn persistence of gender discrimination in the workplace, using a comparative and cross-sectional perspective of national representative samples.

Psychosocial processes involved in justified discrimination

According to several lines of research [ 9 – 13 ], the expression of prejudice in contexts where social and political anti-discrimination values are prevalent implies justifications. Crandall and Eshleman [ 10 ] defined justifications as “any psychological or social process that can serve as an opportunity to express genuine prejudice without suffering external or internal sanction”. According to social dominance theory, justification of practices that sustain social inequality arises through the endorsement of legitimizing myths [ 13 ]. Moreover, research conducted in the field of system justification theory has extensively documented an increased adherence to legitimizing ideologies (including social stereotypes, meritocracy, political conservatism, etc.) in contexts where motivation to justify unequal social arrangements is heightened [ 14 – 17 ]. Relying on this literature Pereira, Vala and Costa-Lopes [ 18 ] provided evidence of the mediational role of myths about social groups on the prejudice-support for discriminatory measures relationship. Specifically, they demonstrated that the myths according to which immigrants take jobs away from the host society members and increase crime rates mediated the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration (see also [ 19 ]). We assume that an equivalent mediational process underlies the justification of gender discrimination in the workplace or, put differently, that the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship is mediated by legitimizing myths. Glick and Fiske [ 20 ] conceptualised sexism as a multidimensional construct that encompasses hostile and benevolent sexism, both of which having three components: paternalism, gender differentiation and heterosexuality. We suspect that the gender differentiation component of sexism in particular may be related to gender discrimination in the workplace, because the maintenance of power asymmetry through traditional gender roles is at the core of this component [ 20 ]. Accordingly, it is assumed that the higher the endorsement of sexist attitudes regarding gender roles in the family, the higher the opposition to women’s work. In support of this assumption, Glick and Fiske [ 21 ] stated that gender roles are part of the more general interdependence between women and men occurring in the context of family relationships and, importantly, that these traditional, complementary gender roles shape sex discrimination. However, given that the expression of hostility towards women became socially disapproved [ 22 , 23 ] and that gender discrimination in the workplace is subjected to sanctions (see for instance [ 24 ]), the release of sexism with regard to women’s role in the family and women’s professional opportunities may require justification [ 10 , 19 ].

Motherhood myths as a justification for gender discrimination

Compared with other intergroup relations, gender relations present some unique features (e.g., heterosexual interdependence; [ 25 , 26 ] and accordingly comprise specific myths and ideologies aimed at maintaining the traditional system of gender relations [ 27 – 29 ]. For instance, the belief that marriage is the most meaningful and fulfilling adult relationship appears as a justifying myth, on which men and women rely when the traditional system of gender relations is challenged by enhanced gender equality measured at the national level [ 30 ]. Drawing on this literature, we propose that beliefs that imbue women with specific abilities for domestic and parental work ensure that the traditional distribution of gender roles is maintained. In particular, we suggest that motherhood myths serve a justification function regarding gender discrimination against women in the workplace. Motherhood myths include the assumptions that women, by their very nature, are endowed with parenting abilities, that at-home mothers are bonded to their children, providing them unrivalled nurturing surroundings [ 31 , 32 ]. Conversely, motherhood myths pathologised alternative mothering models, depicting employed mothers as neglecting their duty of caring, threatening the family relationships and jeopardizing mother-children bondings (see [ 33 ] for a critical review of these myths). Motherhood myths have the potential to create psychological barriers impairing women’s attempt to seek power in the workplace [ 34 ] and men’s involvement in child care [ 35 – 37 ]. We suggest that beyond their pernicious influence at the individual level of parental choices, motherhood myths might operate more broadly as justifications for gender discrimination regarding career opportunity. This question is of particular relevance given that equal treatment in the workplace appears even more elusive for women with children—the maternal wall [ 38 ] (see also [ 39 – 45 ]). At the same time, recognizing the pervasive justifying function of motherhood myths may help understand the psychosocial barriers faced not only by women who are mothers, but by women as a whole since "women are expected to become mothers sooner or later" (Dambrin & Lambert [ 46 ], p. 494; see also [ 47 ]). Relying on previous work documenting the mediational role of legitimizing myths on the prejudice—discrimination relationship [ 18 , 19 ] we suggest that the myths according to which women pursuing a career threaten the well-being of the family mediates the relationship between sexist attitudes regarding gender roles and opposition to women’s work.

Exploring gender and time as possible moderators of the hypothesized mediation

Besides the test of the main mediational hypothesis, the present research sought to explore time and gender as possible moderators of the assumed relationship between sexism, motherhood myths and discrimination. A review of the historical development of gender equality policies confirms that the implementation of laws and regulations aimed at eliminating gender discrimination in the workplace is a lengthy process (e.g., for the European countries see [ 48 ]; for the USA see [ 49 ]). In fact, although the basic principle of anti-discrimination has been enacted by many countries in the second half of the 20 th century, some measures are still adopted nowadays, such as the obligation for employers to publish information by 2018 about their bonuses for men and women as part of their gender pay gap reporting, a provision recently taken by the UK government. As egalitarian principles have gradually progressed in societies, it is likely that the expression of intergroup bias has become steadily subjected to social sanction. Thus, “as with racism, normative and legislative changes have occurred in many industrialized societies that make it less acceptable to express sexist ideas openly” (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, [ 50 ], p. 843; see also [ 51 ]). Accordingly, gender discrimination within organizations became less intense and more ambiguous [ 52 – 54 ]. In line with this reasoning, the use of motherhood myths as a justification for unequal career opportunities may have increased over time. Conversely, it has been suggested that along with the increasing female participation in the labour market over the last decades, a positive attitude regarding the government-initiated women-friendly policies now coexists with an adherence to traditional family values and norms [ 55 ]. There is a possibility that the coexistence of contradictory norms in the same culture may leave some room for the expression of gender bias (i.e., a normative compromise, [ 56 ]), reducing slightly the need to rely on justifications to discriminate against working women. The present research will examine these possibilities by studying the role of motherhood myths on the sexism—discrimination relationship in 1994 and 2012.

Another possible moderator examined in the present study is the respondents' gender. Basically, the reason why people rely on justifications is to express their genuine prejudices without appearing biased. Consistent evidence, however, suggests that the perpetrator’s gender affects people’s perception of sexism towards women: given that sexism is generally conceived as involving a man discriminating against a woman, men are perceived as prototypical of the perpetrator [ 57 , 58 ]. As a consequence, sexist behaviours carried out by males are perceived as more sexist than the same behaviours enacted by females [ 59 , 60 ]. Moreover, the expression of sexism by women may go undetected due to the reluctance of women to recognize that they might be harmed by a member of their own gender group [ 22 ]. Taken together, these findings suggest that a woman is more likely than a man to express sexist bias without being at risk of appearing sexist. In line with this reasoning, one could assume that men need to rely on justifications to discriminate to a greater extent than women do. Alternatively, women expressing sexism against their ingroup members are at risk of being negatively evaluated for violating the prescription of feminine niceness [ 61 , 62 ]. As a consequence, women might be inclined to use justifications to discriminate in order to maintain positive interpersonal evaluations. An additional argument for assuming that women may rely on motherhood myths lies in the system justification motive. According to system justification theory [ 63 , 64 ], people are motivated to defend and justify the status quo, even at the expense of their ingroup. From this perspective, the belief that every group in society possesses some advantages and disadvantages increases the belief that the system is balanced and fair [ 29 , 65 ]. Motherhood myths imbue women with a natural, instinctual and biologically rooted capacity to raise children that men are lacking [ 66 ]. In addition, they convey gender stereotype describing women in positive terms (e.g., considerate, warm, nurturing) allowing a women-are-wonderful perception [ 27 ]. As a consequence, women are likely to rely on motherhood myths to restore the illusion that, despite men structural advantage [ 67 , 68 ], women as a group still possess some prerogatives [ 34 ].

The aim of the present study is to test the main hypothesis (H1) that motherhood myths are a justification that mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s work following the birth of a child. Additionally, two potential moderators of this mediational process are considered. The present research tests the exploratory hypotheses that (H2) the assumed mediational process is moderated by time and (H3) by participants’ gender. We tested these hypotheses using the Family and Changing Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme [ 69 , 70 ]. This international academic project, based on a representative probabilistic national sample, deals with gender related issues, including attitudes towards women’s employment and household management. Hence this database enables a test of the proposed mediational model on a large sample of female and male respondents and data gathered 18 years apart.

We used the 2012 and 1994 waves of the ISSP Family and Changing Gender Roles cross-national survey [ 69 , 70 ]. The ISSP published fully anonymized data so that individual survey participants cannot be identified. The two databases slightly differed regarding the involved countries, some of which did not participate in the two survey waves. In order to maintain consistency across the analyses, we selected 18 countries that participated in both survey waves (i.e., Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the USA). The data file for the 2012 survey wave included 24222 participants (54.4% female participants), mean age = 49.38, SD = 17.54, and the data file for the 1994 survey wave included 27410 participants (54.4% female participants), mean age = 44.26, SD = 17.07.

The main variables used in this study are the following:

One indicator was used to capture sexism: “A man's job is to earn money; a woman's job is to look after the home and family”. This item taps into the gender differentiation component of sexism [ 20 , 25 ]. Participants answered on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Data was recoded so that the higher scores reflected higher sexism.

Motherhood myths.

Two indicators were used that capture the myths about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child and the family: “A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works” and “All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job”. Participants answered on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Data was recoded so that the higher scores reflected higher endorsement of motherhood myths.

Opposition to women’s career.

Two indicators were used to capture the opposition to women’s professional career following the birth of a child: “Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all when there is a child under school age?” and “Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all after the youngest child starts school?” Participants answered on a scale ranging from 1 = work full time, 2 = work part-time, 3 = stay at home.

In addition, the first step of our analyses involved the following control variables: participant’s gender and age, partnership status, educational level, subjective social status, attendance of religious services and political orientation.

The following section presents the results of a four-step analysis: The first step consists of a preliminary hierarchical regression analysis to establish the respective contributions of demographical variables, sexism and motherhood myths to opposition to women’s work. The second step is dedicated to a test of the construct validity of the proposed measurement model using Confirmatory Factor Analyses. The third step involves a test of the hypothesized mediation. Finally, the last step is a test of the hypothesized moderated mediations.

Step 1: Hierarchical regression analysis

Inspection of the correlation matrix ( Table 1 ) indicates that all the correlations are positive, ranging from moderate to strong. The pair of items measuring motherhood myths presents the strongest correlation ( r (48961) = .633), followed by the pair of items measuring opposition to women’s career ( r (45178) = .542).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t001

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to establish the respective contributions of demographical variables, sexism and motherhood myths to opposition to women’s work. In block 1, participant’s gender (male = -1, female = 1) and partnership (no partner = -1, partner = 1) were entered together with standardized scores of age, years of schooling, subjective social status, attendance of religious services and political orientation. Block 2 included sexism, the myths about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child and for family (all standardized). Predictors in block 1 accounted for 9% of the variance, F (7, 10140) = 157.89, p < .001. The analysis revealed the significant effects of participant’s gender ( B = -.033, SE = .006, p < .001), age ( B = .058, SE = .006, p < .001), years of schooling ( B = -.135, SE = .007, p < .001), subjective social status ( B = -.057, SE = .007, p < .001), religiosity ( B = .076, SE = .006, p < .001) and political orientation ( B = .04, SE = .006, p < .001). Partnership was unrelated to opposition to women’s career ( B = .002, SE = .006, p = .77). Taken together the results indicate that the higher the time of education and the subjective social status, the lower the opposition to women’s work. Conversely, the higher the age, religiosity and political conservatism, the higher the opposition to women’s work. Finally, results indicate that opposition to women’s work is more pronounced amongst men than amongst women. When entered in block 2, sexism and motherhood myths accounted for an additional 18% of the variance, indicating that these variables significantly improved the model’s ability to predict opposition to women’s work, over and above the contributions of gender, partnership, education, social status, religiosity and political orientation (Δ R 2 = .18), Δ F (3, 10137) = 854.04, p < .001. Specifically, the analysis revealed the significant effects of sexism ( B = .151, SE = .006, p < .001), myth about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child ( B = .10, SE = .007, p < .001) and myth about the aversive consequence of women’s work for family ( B = .09, SE = .007, p < .001). It should be noted that the effect of participant’s gender virtually disappeared after controlling for sexism and motherhood myths ( Table 2 ). In addition, we performed this hierarchical regression analysis separately for the two waves and consistently found that the variables of our model (sexism and the motherhood myths) explained more variance than the demographical variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t002

Step 2: Confirmatory factor analyses

We conducted a CFA to check the construct validity of the proposed measurement model. CFA and subsequent analyses were all performed using R. 3.4.1 and the Lavaan package [ 71 ]. The loading of the single indicator of the sexism variable and the loading of the first indicator of the motherhood myths and opposition variables were constrained to 1.00 [ 72 ], and the three variables were allowed to correlate. Results show a good fit to the data, χ 2 (3, N = 42997) = 400.36, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 540804. In addition, we estimated an alternative model in which all items loaded on a unique latent variable. This alternative model shows a poorer fit to the data, χ 2 (5, N = 42997) = 8080.28, p < .001, CFI = .867, RMSEA = .19 [90% CI = .19, .19], SRMR = .07, AIC = 548480. The comparison of the two models indicates that the proposed measurement model fits the data better than the alternative one, Δ χ 2 (2, 42997) = 7679.9, p < .001. We repeated this comparison in each country and results confirm that the proposed measurement model fits better in all countries (see S1 Table for comparative test of the goodness of fit of the hypothesized measurement model vs. alternative measurement model in each country).

We tested the measurement invariance of the CFA model across the two survey waves. To do this, we conducted a model comparison to test for configural and metric invariances. Results indicate that the configural invariance can be retained, χ 2 (6, N = 42997) = 513.05, p < .001, CFI = .991, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 537580. When constraining the loadings to be equal across waves fit indices remain satisfactory, χ 2 (8, N = 42997) = 679.58, p < .001, CFI = .989, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .02, AIC = 537743. The change in CFI is below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the metric invariance can be retained and that further comparisons of the relationships between constructs across survey waves can be performed [ 73 , 74 ]. Furthermore, we repeated this comparison in each country and results support the configural invariance of the CFA model across survey waves in all countries. In addition, the full metric invariance is obtained in all but three countries—Poland, Slovenia and the USA. In these countries, the CFIs are larger than the cutpoint of .01, indicating a lack of full metric invariance. Nonetheless, we were able to retain a partial metric invariance of the CFA model across the survey waves by setting free one non-invariant loading [ 75 ], (see S2 Table for the test of the invariance of the measurement model across survey waves by country).

We tested the measurement invariance of the CFA model across gender groups using the same procedure as for the test of the measurement invariance across survey waves. The baseline model constraining the factor structure to be equal in the two gender groups shows good fit to the data, χ 2 (6, N = 42943) = 440.95, p < .001, CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 539573, indicating that the configural invariance is achieved for the two groups. Then we fitted a more restricted model in which the factor loadings were constrained to be equal across groups. This model allows testing for the metric invariance (equal loadings) of the model across gender. Once again, the results indicate that this constrained model show good fit to the data, χ 2 (8, N = 42943) = 469.14, p < .001, CFI = 0.992, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .04, .05], SRMR = .01, AIC = 539598. Furthermore, the Δ CFI is below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the metric invariance can be retained [ 75 ]. This result confirms that cross gender comparisons of the relationships between constructs can reasonably be performed. Furthermore, we repeated this procedure in each country. Once again, the Δ CFIs are below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the configural invariance of the CFA model across gender groups is achieved in all countries (see S3 Table for the test of the invariance of the measurement model across gender groups by country).

Step 3. Mediation analysis

Overview of the analysis strategy..

This study main hypothesis is that (H1) the more people hold sexist attitude regarding gender roles, the more they endorse motherhood myths, which in turn enhances the opposition to women’s career after the birth of a child. In order to test this assumption, we ran mediational analyses using structural equation modelling. First, we examined the goodness of fit of the hypothesized mediational model and compared it with the goodness of fit of two alternative models. In the first alternative model, motherhood myths predict sexism that, in turn, predicts opposition. In the second alternative model, opposition to women’s career predicts motherhood myths. After having established that the hypothesized model adequately fit the data, we examined the coefficients for the hypothesized relationships between variables.

Goodness of fit of the models.

Inspection of the fit indices indicates that the hypothesized model fits the data better than the first alternative model in 16 out of the 18 analysed countries ( Table 3 ). Thus, in these countries the data is better accounted for by a model stating motherhood myths as a mediator of the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship, rather than by a model stating sexism as a mediator of the myths-opposition to women’s career relationship. The comparison of the fit indices indicates that the two models fit the data to almost the same extent in the two remaining countries (i.e., Czech Republic, and Philippines). Finally, the second alternative model—where opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths and sexism—shows very poor fit to the data in all countries. This result suggests that endorsement of motherhood myths is not a mere consequence of discrimination.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t003

Test of the relationships between variables.

The goodness of fit of the proposed mediational model having been established in 16 countries out of 18, we next examined the coefficients for the hypothesized relationships in these countries. Table 4 shows the results of the mediation analysis in the 16 retained countries. The total effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is positive and significant in all countries. The direct effect is reduced in all countries when controlling for the indirect effect through motherhood myths. As recommended in the literature, the indirect effects were subjected to follow-up bootstrap analyses using 1000 bootstrapping resamples [ 76 ]. The null hypothesis is rejected and the indirect effect is considered significant if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) do not include zero. All bias corrected 95% CI for the indirect effect excluded zero, indicating that in line with H1, endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career in all countries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t004

In order to provide an overview of the proposed mediational model, we next present the analyses conducted on the total of the 16 countries retained. The hypothesized mediational model shows acceptable fit to the data, χ 2 (4, N = 38178) = 971.09, p < .001, CFI = .983, RMSEA = .08 [90% CI = .07, .08], SRMR = .04, AIC = 473476. Inspection of the fit indices of the first alternative model where endorsement of motherhood myths predicted sexism that, in turn, predicted opposition confirms that this alternative model shows poorer fit to the data than the proposed model, χ 2 (4, N = 38178) = 7583.1, p < .001, CFI = .870, RMSEA = .22 [90% CI = .21, .22], SRMR = .13, AIC = 480088. The second alternative model, where opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths shows poor fit to the data, χ 2 (5, N = 38178) = 14224.61, p < .001, CFI = .756, RMSEA = .27 [90% CI = .26, .27], SRMR = .21, AIC = 486728, and accordingly fits the data less well than the proposed mediational model, Δ χ 2 (1, 38178) = 13254 p < .001. As can be seen in Fig 1 , the standardized regression coefficient for the direct effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is significant ( β = .16, p < .001). In addition, the unstandardized estimate for the indirect effect excludes zero (.13, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.12, .13]) and, therefore, is significant. Taken together, analyses conducted on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, support our main assumption that endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career.

The coefficient in parentheses represents parameter estimate for the total effect of prejudice on opposition to women’s career. *** p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.g001

Step 4. Moderated mediation analyses

Indirect effect through survey waves..

The moderated mediation model was estimated using a multiple group approach. This model exhibits good fit to the data, χ 2 (6, N = 38178) = 438.88, p < .001, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01. The standardized coefficients for the total effect are .50 in the 2012 survey, and .52 in the 1994 survey. The unstandardized estimates for the indirect effect is .10, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11] in the 2012 survey, and .11, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11] in the 1994 survey. The intervals do not include zero, indicating that motherhood myths are a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career in both survey waves. The difference between the indirect effect in 2012 and 1994 is not significant (-.003, SE = 0.004, bias corrected 95% CI [.-.01, .00]). We repeated the moderated mediation analysis in each country. As can be seen in Table 5 , the indirect effect reaches significance in each survey wave in all countries. The indirect effect is not moderated by the survey year, except in Great Britain where the indirect effect, although still significant, decreased between 1994 and 2012, and Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia where the indirect effect slightly increased between 1994 and 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t005

Indirect effect as a function of the respondents’ gender.

The moderated mediation model exhibits good fit to the data, χ 2 (6, N = 38124) = 402.46, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01. The total effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is positive and significant for both men ( β = .52, p < .001) and women ( β = .50, p < .001). The standardized indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths is .27 in the male subsample, and .29 in the female subsample. The unstandardized estimates for the indirect effect is .11, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, 12] in the male sample, and .10, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.09, .10] in the female sample. The intervals do not include zero, indicating that motherhood myths are a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career among both men and women respondents. The difference between the indirect effect among men and women is not statistically significant (.01, SE = 0.004, bias corrected 95% CI [.00, .01]). We repeated this analysis in each country separately (see Table 6 ). Results confirm that the indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths is not moderated by the respondents’ gender in 15 out of the 16 countries. The only exception is Poland. In this country, the indirect effect is stronger for the female than for the male respondents.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t006

Using a large representative sample of respondents from various countries the present research documented a psychosocial process of justification of discrimination against working women with children. As a preliminary step, hierarchical regression analysis established that sexism and motherhood myths predict opposition to women’s work, over and above gender, partnership, education, social status, religiosity and political orientation. Furthermore, structural equation modellings on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, confirmed our main hypothesis that endorsement of motherhood myths mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career following a birth. In addition, test of the moderated mediation indicated that the indirect effect reaches significance in each survey wave in almost all countries examined without substantial difference. Only in Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia did the indirect effect slightly increase between 1994 and 2012, suggesting that motherhood myths is more a justification for the expression of sexism nowadays than in the late 20 th century. Great Britain shows a reverse pattern with a slight decrease of the indirect effect between the two waves. However, besides these minor variations, it should be noted that motherhood myths remain a significant mediator of the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship in all countries. The present research also considered participants' gender as a potential moderator of the indirect effect, and results indicated that the process of justification of discrimination against working women does not differ as a function of the respondents' gender. The only exception to this finding is Poland where the indirect effect is indeed stronger among women than among men. An examination of the specific features of female employment in this country sheds some light on this result. Young women in Poland are better educated than young men and are more likely to have permanent employment than men [ 77 ]. At the same time however, working women spend on average two and a half hours per day on unpaid work more than men—which is reflected by the fact that more than 1 in 3 women reduce their paid hours to part-time, while only 1 in 10 men do the same—and are predominant users of parental leave [ 3 ]. It is noteworthy that reduced working hours (and long periods of leave) hinders female career progression through less training, fewer opportunities for advancement, occupational segregation, and lower wages [ 78 , 79 ]. Accordingly, in Poland women earn 9% less than men (one of the lowest gender pay gap in OECD) but the pay gap reaches 22% by presence of children (above the OECD average of 16%; [ 77 ]). The fact that women appear even more inclined than men to rely on motherhood myths to justify gender discrimination is consistent with a system justification perspective [ 63 ]. Drawing on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, system justification theory in its strong form posits that members of disadvantaged groups may be even more likely than members of advantaged groups to support existing social inequalities [ 64 ]. The rational is that members of disadvantaged groups would experience psychological discomfort stemming from the concurrent awareness of their ingroup's inferiority within the system, and of their ingroup's contribution to that system. Justification of the status quo would therefore reduce dissonance [ 80 ]. The finding that women strongly rely on motherhood myths to justify gender discrimination precisely in a country with strong motherhood penalty can be regarded as an expression of this system justification motive.

The present research sheds new light on the effect of macrolevel inequality on the justification of discrimination, and more broadly on the process of legitimation of gender inequalities [ 9 , 81 ]. In a recent study, Yu and Lee [ 82 ] found a negative association between women’s relative status in society and support for gender equality at home. More specifically, the authors found that although respondents in countries with smaller gender gaps express greater support for women’s participation in the labour force, they still exhibit less approval for egalitarian gender roles within the household, in particular regarding the share of domestic chores and childcare. As an explanation, the authors argued that the less traditional the gender division of labour is in a society, the more people need to express their freedom of maintaining these roles and to defend the gender system, leading to the endorsement of gender differentiation in the private sphere. However, the present research allows an alternative explanation for this seemingly paradoxical finding to be suggested. At a macrolevel, higher gender equality conveys strong suppressive factors (which reduce the expression of prejudice) by demonstrating that the society promotes egalitarianism between women and men. In parallel, the gender specialization in the division of the household responsibilities and especially regarding childcare provides a strong justifying factor (which releases prejudice) by emphasising essential differences between gender groups [ 26 ]. Thus, the counterintuitive finding that the more egalitarian a society is, the less people support gender equality at home may indeed reflect an attempt to justify the release of genuine sexism. Conversely, it is likely that a less egalitarian society brings with it some degree of tolerance towards gender discrimination, reducing the need to rely on justifications to express sexism. A closer look at our results regarding Norway and Japan supports this view. Norway and Japan appears as especially contrasted regarding gender equality, in particular with regard to economic participation and opportunity [ 1 ]. According to the World Economic Forum, Norway has the second smallest gender gap in the world. In addition, gender equality promotion is frequently mobilised both in political debates and in mainstream society [ 55 ]. For its part, Japan ranks 101 st on the overall gender gap index, which makes Japan well below average compared to other advanced industrial countries [ 83 ]. Besides this gender gap, consistent research reports a unique trivialisation of anti-gender equality discourses in the media [ 84 ] and of gender-based discriminatory behaviours in the workplace, including sexual harassment [ 85 ]. Comparing the strength of the indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths in these two countries ( Table 4 ), it is noteworthy that the coefficient is larger in Norway than in Japan. This result gives support to the assumption that macrolevel gender (in)equality affects the psychological process of justification at the individual level. Future studies should clarify how macrolevel inequalities impact societal norms, which in turn influence legitimation processes.

It is also worth noting that the justifying function of motherhood myths is established in all analysed countries despite some notable differences between parental leaves policies and practices. For instance, the United States are the only OECD country to offer no nationwide entitlement to paid leave, neither for mothers nor for fathers [ 86 ]. On the other hand, the Nordic nations, with Norway and Sweden in the lead, are in the vanguard of progressive policy-making regarding shared parental leave entitlement: Sweden was the first country in the world in 1974 to offer fathers the possibility of taking paid parental leave, quickly joined by Norway in 1978 [ 87 ]. More recently in 2007, Germany introduced a new law aiming at encouraging shared parental leave. In practice, the length of the financial support for parental leave can increase from 12 to 14 months provided that fathers use the parental benefit for at least 2 months. Recent research aiming at investigating whether German men who take parental leave are judged negatively in the workplace revealed that, in contrast with women who experience penalty for motherhood [ 40 ], fathers do not face backlash effect when they take a long parental leave [ 88 ]. The authors concluded that "gender role attitudes have changed". Tempering this view, the present study indicates that even in countries promoting incentives for fathers to take parental leave, motherhood myths—and specifically the belief that mother's work threatens the family—are still a justification for gender discrimination in the workplace. With regard to practices, it should be noted that shared parental leave policies, whose purpose is to foster gender equality in the labor market, often fail to meet this objective, with the majority of fathers actually taking the minimum length of leave entitlement, or no parental leave at all, and the majority of mothers still facing the majority of childcare [ 88 ]. Once again, more research is needed to document the process of mutual influences between changing family policies and the maintenance of the gender status quo via justifying beliefs.

Limitations and future directions

Although the hypothesized mediational process is supported by the data, and is in line with previous experimental findings [ 19 ], conclusion regarding causality are necessarily limited due to the correlational nature of the research. We hope that these preliminary findings will open the way to experimental studies allowing for a conclusion on the direction of causality between variables and the further documenting of the behavioural consequences of the endorsement of motherhood myths. For instance, future studies should consider the extent to which motherhood myths interact with organizational norms to constrain the hiring and promotion of women. Castilla and Benard [ 89 ] showed that when an organization explicitly values meritocracy, managers favour a male employee over an equally qualified female employee. One explanation for this seemingly paradoxical results lies in the legitimation function of meritocracy [ 17 ] which is likely to release the expression of sexism. We suggest that when organizations promote egalitarian norms, or put differently, when organizations set suppression factors, then motherhood myths may serve as a justification for unequal gender treatment regarding career outcomes.

Due to constraints related to the availability of data in the ISSP base, only one indicator was used to capture sexism. This can be regarded as a limitation providing that sexism is typically defined as a complex construct [ 20 ]. We argue that measuring the gender differentiation component of sexism through a single item represents a valid approach, as suggested by previous research indicating that single-item measures may be as reliable as aggregate scales [ 90 – 94 ]. However, using a multiple-item measure of sexism in future studies would provide a more comprehensive examination of the relations between the different components of sexism and opposition to gender equality in the workplace.

The present research focused on opposition to mothers' work as an indicator of gender discrimination. However, evidence suggests that motherhood myths may justify discrimination towards women as a whole rather than mothers only. First, as previously mentioned social roles create gender expectations [ 95 ] so that all women are expected to become mothers [ 47 ]. Furthermore, research using implicit association test indicate that people automatically associate women with family role [ 96 ]. As a consequence, it is plausible that employers rely on motherhood myths to discriminate against women in general regarding recruitement, performance evaluation, and rewards, arguing that women will sooner or later be less involved in work and less flexible for advancement than men [ 97 ]. This justification is compatible with the employers' reluctance to hire women and promote them to the highest positions even in the absence of productivity differences [ 98 ].

Practical implications

In this study we were able to document that motherhood myths are a widespread justification for gender discrimination in the workplace, including in countries with anti-discrimination laws and advanced family policies. From this regard, the present findings help understand the paradoxical effects of family-friendly policies on women's economic attainment. Mandel and Semyonov [ 99 ], using data from 20 countries, found evidence that family policies aimed at supporting women's economic independence, and including provision of childcare facilities and paid parental leaves, increase rather than decrease gender earning gaps. This unexpected effect is due to the fact that family policies are disproportionally used by mothers rather than fathers, with the consequence that mothers are concentrated in part-time employment, female-typed occupations, yet underrepresented in top positions. The authors concluded that "there are distinct limits to the scope for reducing gender wage inequality in the labor market as long as women bear the major responsibility for household duties and child care" (p. 965). We would add that there are strong barriers to the scope for attaining gender equality at home as long as motherhood myths are uncritically accepted and used as justification for unequal gender arrangements. Recent works provided evidence of the efficiency of interventions aimed at reducing sexist beliefs [ 100 ] and at recognizing everyday sexism [ 101 ]. In the same vain, interventions aimed at informing people that motherhood myths are socially constructed and maintained [ 33 ], and that they affect women's advancement and fathers' involvement [ 35 ], would represent a first step towards the reduction of discrimination by depriving individuals of a justification for gender inequalities.

The present research builds on and extends past findings by demonstrating that men and women rely on the belief that women’s work threatens the well-being of youth and family to justify discrimination against working women. If, at an individual level, this process allows discrimination to be exhibited without appearing prejudiced [ 10 ], at the group and societal levels, such a process may contribute to the legitimation and reinforcement of the hierarchical power structure [ 63 ]. By documenting a pervasive process by which people invoke motherhood myths to hinder women’s economic participation, the present research emphasizes the need to be vigilant about any attempts to promote a return to traditional gender roles, an issue of central importance given the contemporary rollback of women’s rights in advanced industrial countries [ 102 ].

Supporting information

S1 table. comparative test of the goodness of fit of the hypothesized measurement model vs. alternative measurement model..

All differences are significant at p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s001

S2 Table. Test of the invariance of the measurement model across survey waves by country.

In Poland and Slovenia partial metric invariance of the measurement model was attained by setting free the loading of the item “ Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time , part-time or not at all after the youngest child starts school ?” on the “opposition” latent variable. This partly constrained model show good fit indices in Poland, χ 2 (7, N = 2248) = 36.18, p = .006, CFI = .990, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .04, .08], and Slovenia, χ 2 (7, N = 1867) = 12.92, p = .058, ns , CFI = .999, RMSEA = .03 [90% CI = .00, .05]. In the USA, partial metric invariance of the measurement model was attained by setting free the loading of the item “ All in all , family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job ” on the “motherhood myths” latent variable, χ 2 (7, N = 2117) = 11.08, p = .069, ns , CFI = .999, RMSEA = .02 [90% CI = .00, .04].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s002

S3 Table. Test of the invariance of the measurement model across gender groups by count.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s003

S1 Supplementary Information. Additional details concerning the way the research was conducted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s004

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Virginie Bonnot, Cícero Pereira, and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

• 1. The Global Gender Gap Report: 2016. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2016.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. European Union. Tackling the gender pay gap in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Burri S, van Eijken H. Gender equality law in 33 European countries how are EU rules transposed into national law?. Brussels: European Commission; 2014 [cited 2016 Mar 11]. http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:DSAD14001:EN:HTML
• 11. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Aversive Racism. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 36. San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004. pp. 1–52.
• 12. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando : Academic Press; 1986.
• 13. Sidanius J, Pratto F. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
• 21. Glick P, Fisk ST. Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In: Crosby F. J., Stockdale M. S., Ropp S. A., editors. Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2007. pp. 155–187.
• 24. Velez et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, 04 Civ.09194; 2010.
• 26. Rudman LA, Glick P. The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY US: Guilford Press; 2008.
• 31. Hays S. The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 1998.
• 48. Timmer A, Senden L. A comparative analysis of gender equality law in Europe 2015: A comparative analysis of the implementation of EU gender equality law in the EU Member States, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and Turkey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 7]. http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:DS0416376:EN:HTML
• 49. McBride DE, Parry JA. Women’s rights in the USA: policy debates and gender roles. Fifth edition. New York; London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.
• 56. Boltanski L, Thévenot L. On justification: economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.
• 66. Hrdy SB. Mother nature: maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. 1st ed. New York: Ballantine Books; 2000.
• 67. Goodwin SA, Fiske ST. Power and gender: The double-edged sword of ambivalence. In: Unger RK, Unger RK (Ed), editors. Handbook of the psychology of women and gender. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2001. pp. 358–366.
• 69. ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles II—ISSP 1994; 1997 GESIS. Data Archive, Cologne. ZA2620 Data file Version 1.0.0, 10.4232/1.2620.
• 70. ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles IV—ISSP 2012; 2016. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 4.0.0, 10.4232/1.12661.
• 71. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2017.
• 77. OECD. Closing the gender gap: act now. Paris: OECD; 2012.
• 85. Hidaka T. Salaryman masculinity the continuity of and change in the hegemonic masculinity in Japan [Internet]. Leiden; Boston: Brill; 2010 [cited 2016 Jun 13]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004183032.i-224
• 86. OECD. Parental leave: Where are the fathers? Paris: OECD; 2016.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

6 Gender Discrimination in the Workplace

Madeline E. Heilman Department of Psychology New York University New York, NY, USA

Suzette Caleo EJ Ourso College of Business Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA, USA

• Published: 03 February 2015
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter reviews the conditions and processes that give rise to gender discrimination in the workplace, impeding women’s career advancement. It explores how descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes—through distinct mechanisms—promote inequities in the selection, promotion, and evaluation of women. The paper examines how descriptive gender stereotypes, which describe what men and women are like , encourage gender discriminatory behavior by contributing to the expectation that women are ill equipped to succeed in traditionally male positions. It also considers how prescriptive gender stereotypes, which prescribe what men and women should be like , encourage gender discriminatory behavior by spurring disapproval and social penalties for women who behave in stereotype-inconsistent ways—whether explicitly or by merely being successful in roles considered to be male-typed. The chapter discusses existing research, considers the conditions that minimize or exacerbate gender discrimination, and identifies questions for future study.

In today’s organizations, women not only comprise approximately half of the workforce but also occupy half of managerial and professional positions ( U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013 ). A quick overview of these labor statistics might suggest that men and women have reached equal footing in the workplace. Yet, this picture fails to hold up across all jobs, and women remain underrepresented in organizational roles that hold the most status, prestige, and remuneration. Within the Fortune 500, for example, women account for only 5% of CEOs, 14.6% of executive positions, and 16.9% of board members (Catalyst, 2014a , 2014b ). They also earn a fraction of what their male counterparts make—a number that has stagnated in recent years ( Hegewisch, Williams, Hartmann, & Hudiburg, 2014 ). Growing evidence suggests that these disparities exist even when men and women have comparable qualifications, experience, and education and despite efforts by organizations to promote the career development of women. This chapter focuses on the processes that give rise to gender discrimination and the role that gender stereotypes play in perpetuating these inequities between male and female employees.

Gender discrimination in the workplace occurs when applicants or employees are treated unfavorably because of their sex ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014 ). It manifests itself in the form of barriers that impede the career progress of women—whether “glass ceilings” that block progress to the top of organizations ( Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987 ) or “labyrinths” that female leaders must continually navigate ( Eagly & Carli, 2007 ). In short, the obstacles created by gender discrimination pervade various stages of employment, including the recruitment ( Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011 ), selection ( Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007 ), compensation ( Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2013 ), appraisal ( Lyness & Heilman, 2006 ), and promotion of women ( Heilman & Okimoto, 2008 ). In order to establish an understanding of this type of discrimination, we review existing research that sheds light on gender bias and its effects on evaluative decisions made about women in the workplace. Gender bias is the conduit to gender discrimination, as gender-biased perceptions form the basis of discriminatory decisions and actions. We provide an overview of theoretical perspectives and consider evidence that illustrates why and when gender bias occurs in organizations and how gender stereotypes contribute to its occurrence.

Gender Stereotypes

At the root of gender bias and the discriminatory behavior it provokes are gender stereotypes—widely held preconceptions about the attributes of men and women. Decades ago, researchers identified the central adjectives that people use to characterize men and women ( Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972 ), and these characterizations have remained remarkably consistent over time. According to gender stereotypes, women are thought to be communal (kind, sensitive, and relationship-oriented) and men are thought to be agentic (dominant, ambitious, and achievement-oriented). Because these stereotypes are also oppositional in nature, women tend to be viewed as not agentic and men tend to be viewed as not communal.

Also important to understanding gender bias and discrimination is the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes. Gender stereotypes not only describe what men and women are like, but they also prescribe what men and women should be like. Although both descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes produce discrimination, they do so through different processes. We therefore separately discuss the theories, processes, and empirical findings related to each.

Descriptive Gender Stereotypes

Descriptive gender stereotypes refer to people’s perceptions of what men and women are like. As we already have pointed out, men are thought to possess agentic but lack communal qualities, whereas women are thought to possess communal but lack agentic qualities. These characterizations have been said to originate from the distribution of men and women in social roles ( Eagly & Steffen, 1984 ). Yet, despite marked societal changes, research indicates that descriptive stereotypes persist across time, culture, and context ( Hentschel, Heilman, & Peus, 2013 ; Schein, 2001 ; Williams & Best, 1990 ). In short, the evidence suggests that gender stereotypes are “alive and well” ( Heilman & Eagly, 2008 ).

These preconceptions about men and women have significant implications. Descriptive stereotypes work as heuristics or shortcuts that allow evaluators to quickly and easily form impressions of others. By judging men and women on the basis of their group membership instead of their individuating characteristics, people can conserve mental energy, easily interpret incoming information, and simplify the complex environment around them. In addition, stereotypes tend to be used reflexively and outside of conscious awareness ( Banaji, Hardin, & Rothman, 1993 ; Scott & Brown, 2006 ). Because stereotypes are universal, easy to use, and automatic, they can profoundly shape impressions of men and women.

Yet, on their own, descriptive gender stereotypes do not necessarily spell negative consequences for women. In fact, evidence suggests that women and the characteristics used to describe them are often highly regarded and valued ( Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991 ). Scholars tend to agree that it is not the negativity of stereotypes about women that drives gender discrimination in work settings, but rather their perceived mismatch with the requirements of traditionally male positions ( Eagly & Karau, 2002 ; Heilman, 2012 ).

Theoretical Perspectives

Both the lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983 , 2012 ) and the closely related role congruity theory of prejudice ( Eagly & Karau, 2002 ) suggest that gender discrimination is a function not only of gender stereotypes, but also of the skills and abilities perceived as necessary for success in male gender-typed jobs and roles. These theories propose that the perception of misfit between stereotypes about women and the requirements of these positions provides the impetus for gender discrimination. They also suggest that the greater the extent of this perceived misfit, the more discrimination will be evident.

Important to this formulation is the idea that there are particular jobs and roles that are associated with men and labeled as male gender-typed. These jobs and roles, which are often regarded as the most prestigious and status-laden ( Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996 ), include a wide array of positions, ranging from management and executive leadership to finance; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); and the military. Even within a particular occupation, there are male gender-typed specialties, such as surgery in medicine. Typically, positions are labeled as “male” for two reasons: (1) they have a large proportion of men as workers, and (2) the work is thought to require masculine attributes. Researchers have found a great degree of correspondence between these two operationalizations ( Gaucher et al., 2011 ), and people have generally been found to believe that male-dominated occupations necessitate masculine attributes ( Cejka & Eagly, 1999 ).

Evidence indicates that there is a perceived inconsistency between the attributes associated with women and those thought necessary for success when the job is male in gender-type. Beginning with the “think manager-think male” paradigm, Schein (1973) found that people tended to associate managerial success with attributes characteristic of men rather than women. Subsequent studies demonstrate additional support. Not only has a strong link between agency and career success been demonstrated ( Abele, 2003 ), but good managers ( Powell, Butterfield, & Parent, 2002 ) also continue to be described in masculine terms rather than feminine terms. Although much work on this issue has been done with managerial positions as the focus, similar findings also exist for male gender-typed positions that are not managerial ( Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002 ). The evidence is clear: the perceived requirements for work in male-typed fields fit well with stereotypes about men.

Female stereotypes, however, do not coincide with these desired skills and abilities. Women are perceived as communal and not agentic—qualities that, though desirable in other contexts, simply do not fit with the parameters of male-typed jobs. They are thought to lack the decisiveness, toughness, and competitiveness that is required for success ( Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989 ). This “lack of fit” promotes the assumption that women are poorly equipped to thrive in male-typed occupations, thereby creating unfavorable expectations about their performance. It is these negative performance expectations that form the basis of gender bias in evaluative decision-making.

Consequences of Stereotype-Based Expectations

Negative performance expectations produced by lack of fit perceptions can profoundly affect how evaluators judge information about female applicants and employees. Once formed, performance expectations are tenacious and very difficult to change. They operate in a self-sustaining way, and cognitive distortion helps maintain them even in the face of disconfirming evidence. Evaluators see and process information through the prism of their expectations, affecting the way it is attended to, recalled, and interpreted.

Expectations influence the information that evaluators focus on and attend to. Not only do perceivers overlook and not attend to information that is inconsistent with expectations, but they also fixate on evidence that validates them—leaving original performance expectations intact. Thus, evaluators have been shown to avoid disconfirming information by consciously or unconsciously ignoring it ( Johnson & Judd, 1983 ), deeming it irrelevant ( Norton, Vandello, & Darley, 2004 ; Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005 ), or attributing it to external circumstances ( Swim & Sanna, 1996 ). Consistent with this, people have been found to spend more time attending to ( Favero & Ilgen, 1989 ) and documenting stereotype-consistent evidence than they do stereotype-inconsistent evidence ( Biernat, Fuegen, & Kobrynowicz, 2010 ).

In forming their impressions, perceivers must not only attend to information but also commit that information to memory ( DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984 ). Encoding and retrieval present further occasions in which stereotype-based expectations can bias the processing of information. Research demonstrates that people tend to recall information that confirms expectations more readily than information that refutes them ( Cantor & Mischel, 1979 ). In fact, people have a tendency to falsely remember expectation-consistent behaviors that never occurred ( Fiske & Neuberg, 1990 ). This evidence suggests that people will more likely remember behaviors that confirm stereotype-based expectations about women and forget those behaviors that do not.

Interpretation

Even when evaluators consider and remember all information provided, they can still exercise discretion in its interpretation. The construal of behavior lies in the eye of the beholder, and people have a tendency to project their expectations when evaluating the actions of others. Kunda, Sinclair, and Griffin (1997) , for example, noted that people tend to construe information in a way that is stereotype-consistent. When considering the behavior of men and women, this can translate to different interpretations of the same behavior. For example, actions that might come across as “flexible” or “laid-back” when enacted by a man could be construed as “passive” or “indecisive” when enacted by a woman. When people interpret information in a way that fits their expectations, it allows them to continue to hold them.

These types of cognitive distortion are the direct result of stereotype-based expectations. Each of them can contribute to gender bias in evaluations and ultimately to discriminatory decision-making. When women receive less favorable evaluations than men, they are prone to be selected less often for the job ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2013 ), paid less ( Brett & Stroh, 1997 ), overlooked for challenging assignments ( Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2014 ), and promoted less often ( Heilman & Okimoto, 2008 ). Thus, gender stereotypes can influence the way women are treated throughout the employment process—damaging their prospects and thwarting their opportunities.

Moderators of Descriptive Bias

Although gender stereotypes and the performance expectations they produce are powerful, their consequences do not manifest themselves in all conditions. In fact, various researchers emphasize the importance of context when considering gender discrimination ( Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014 ; Vecchio, 2002 ). In this section, we review factors that minimize or exacerbate gender discrimination

Degree of Stereotype Activation

Consistent with the theoretical perspectives discussed thus far, negative expectations about women’s performance arise in part because of the stereotypes used to describe women. Work in male-typed occupations demands agency, and women’s perceived characteristics fall short of these requirements. Thus, gender discrimination in masculine jobs will depend on the degree to which women are viewed as feminine. When a woman is characterized in highly stereotypical terms, she will be considered especially deficient in the attributes necessary for success, thereby intensifying unfavorable expectations about her performance and promoting more biased evaluations and judgments.

Accordingly, gender discrimination tends to be exacerbated under conditions that heighten the salience of a woman’s gender. Both personal and structural factors have been shown to enhance femininity and make gender more noticeable. For example, several personal qualities, such as motherhood status and physical attractiveness, tend to bias evaluations of women. Those women who are physically attractive ( Heilman & Stopeck, 1985 ) and those who are parents ( Heilman & Okimoto, 2008 ) not only receive more negative evaluations than their male counterparts but also receive more negative evaluations than women without those attributes. Structural arrangements also play a role in enhancing the visibility of gender. Research suggests that women with token or minority status are categorized as more stereotypical ( Kanter, 1977 ) and are also less likely to be selected or promoted ( Heilman & Blader, 2001 ; Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, 1991 ). Finally, policies that are meant to benefit women, such as affirmative action ( Heilman, Block, & Stathatos, 1997 ) and diversity initiatives ( Heilman & Welle, 2006 ), also tend to highlight a woman’s gender and can therefore promote unfavorable performance expectations.

Gender-Type of Job

As implicated in the lack of fit model, female stereotypes conflict with the perceived requirements of male-typed positions , setting into motion a process that fuels gender bias. As a result, we would expect to see a greater incidence of gender discrimination when a position is male in gender-type than when it is not—an assumption that is supported by existing evidence ( Davison & Burke, 2000 ). Such studies have focused on positions in a variety of fields and occupations, and all point to the same conclusion: Gender discrimination is strongest in jobs that are male in gender-type. Research, for example, demonstrates that women are evaluated less favorably than men in line, but not in staff jobs ( Lyness & Heilman, 2006 ), and in financial, but not in human resources jobs ( Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004 ).

Although leadership has been conceptualized as a largely male endeavor, studies also indicate that the “maleness” of managerial positions can vary. For instance, leadership in more neutral arenas such as education is perceived as less masculine ( Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011 ), suggesting that women would encounter less adversity in those areas. In addition, middle management is viewed as less masculine than upper management ( Koenig et al., 2011 )—a trend that is represented in current labor statistics. Women seem to have less trouble ascending to middle management, but plenty of trouble getting out of it. Research suggests that biased evaluations against women are a greater issue in higher organizational levels ( Lyness & Judiesch, 1999 ).

However, gender discrimination is not specific to management and leadership. Studies indicate that it also is a pervasive problem in the sciences, such that women receive less favorable evaluations and are less likely to be hired than men in STEM fields ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2013 ). Additional work demonstrates that the discrepant evaluations that arise between men and women in the male-typed sciences fail to arise in comparable disciplines that are not male in gender-type ( Heilman & Caleo, 2017 ; Heilman, Manzi, & Caleo, 2017 ).

It is interesting to note that efforts to broaden conceptions of what it takes to successfully perform in a traditionally male job could alleviate some of the negative consequences of gender bias. Gaucher et al. (2011) demonstrated that inserting the need for stereotypically female skills in advertisements promotes the perception that more women work in those occupations. This research suggests that differing descriptions of the same job, because they affect the degree to which the job is thought to be male in gender-type, could potentially produce different evaluative consequences for women.

Ambiguity, which is often built into the fabric of organizations, contributes to gender discrimination by allowing expectations to take over and bias evaluations ( Heilman & Haynes, 2008 ). When making personnel decisions, evaluators are frequently faced with inadequate information, subjective criteria, and imprecise structure. This uncertainty provides room for interpretation and encourages people to draw inferences that are consistent with their expectations. In the case of women in male-dominated fields, ambiguity allows people to fill in the blanks with their expectations about women’s performance and consequently creates conditions that are ripe for gender discrimination. Ambiguity can take on many forms, and we discuss the different kinds below.

Quantity and Quality of Information.

Judgments can be biased by the amount of information that is available to evaluators. Specifically, stereotype-based expectations are more likely to take over when information is lacking ( Davison & Burke, 2000 ; Heilman et al., 2004 ), and this overreliance on expectations results in unequal assessments of men and women ( Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989 ). Abundant information, however, is not enough to discourage the use of stereotype-based expectations. Even when information is plentiful, negative expectations can still wield their effect if the quality of that information is lacking. The information that is presented must be specific, relevant to the job, and indicative of performance success; otherwise, expectations about women’s incompetence will dominate and women will be evaluated more negatively than men ( Heilman, Martell, & Simon, 1988 ). In short, both quantity and quality are important when it comes to presenting information about employees.

Clarity of the Evaluative Criteria.

Ambiguity can also manifest itself in the criteria that are used to evaluate employees. Evaluative criteria that are vague, subjective, and abstract encourage evaluators to use their stereotype-based expectations ( Nieva & Gutek, 1980 ). When measures and standards are poorly defined, much is left to interpretation, and it becomes easy for evaluators to rely on their expectations. Research indicates several ways in which this type of ambiguity plays a role in the evaluation process, and the key conclusion is that discrimination is less likely to arise when performance is measured using objective rather than subjective measures. For example, performance measured on the basis of concrete outcomes, such as number of sales, is more resistant to distortion than performance measured on the basis of abstract outcomes, such as ratings of drive and determination. Supporting evidence suggests that supervisory judgments of vaguely defined skills and abilities (i.e., interpersonal competence and communication competence) are rated less reliably than judgments of the actual volume of work produced ( Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996 ).

Ambiguity about the importance of various judgment criteria can also be a problem. It gives people an opportunity to redefine their ideas of what good performance entails depending on whom they are evaluating. Doing so allows individuals to justify their evaluations and modify their standards so that they line up with expectations. According to several studies, people have a tendency to shift the importance they place on particular evaluative criteria by overemphasizing those aspects of performance that favor men’s ratings and underemphasizing those that favor women’s ratings ( Norton et al., 2004 ; Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005 ). The more flexibility that is afforded, the more possibility there is for expectations to guide decision-making.

Evaluative Structure.

When evaluating employees, supervisors are often faced with different pieces of information about a single employee. How they go about integrating these various criteria depends on the amount of structure that exists in the evaluation process. An evaluative structure that is ambiguous enables individuals to adopt evaluation standards that fit their expectations ( Baltes & Parker, 2000 ). This occurs when the evaluative structure allows for nonuniform standards—when not all elements of information must be assessed for everyone and/or there is not a standardized way of organizing this information. The importance of a clear and specific evaluative structure has been demonstrated, as has the value of a structured evaluative procedure using ratings of previously identified observed behaviors rather than an overall evaluative judgment ( Bauer & Baltes, 2002 ).

The issue of reconciling various pieces of information is present in the continuous evaluation process, where an employee’s performance can improve or deteriorate over time. Research suggests that this process can be difficult for managers, who are sometimes unwilling to let go of their initial impressions ( Heslin, Vandewalle, & Latham, 2005 ). Recent evidence suggests that gender stereotypes can similarly bias the appraisal of individuals over time, with people evaluating performance changes differently for men and women. Specifically, evaluators responded to decrements in performance more severely for women than for men, and they reacted to improvements in performance more favorably for men than for women ( Heilman et al., 2017 ).

Source of Performance.

Although teamwork has definite benefits, group conditions are likely to create ambiguity about which member bears the most responsibility for a joint outcome. This type of ambiguity allows individuals to use their stereotype-based expectations to fill in the blanks about who is responsible. Heilman and Haynes (2005) demonstrated that women were credited less than their male counterparts for a joint success when there was source ambiguity—a phenomenon they termed attributional rationalization. They further found that when ambiguity-reducing information was provided—about prior performance, task structure, or individual ability—the difference in attributed responsibility for the success abated. These findings were recently extended, and attributional rationalization was shown to be deterred only when the joint work was completed in a field that is not male gender-typed or in teams in which women were paired with women, not men ( Heilman & Caleo, 2017 ). The nature of the work outcome also has been explored, and women have been shown not only to be credited less than men for successful joint outcomes but also to be blamed more than men for failed joint outcomes ( Heilman & Caleo, 2017 ). Thus, teamwork, which is such a large part of organizational life, can inadvertently provide fertile ground for gender-based expectations.

Strong motivation to make accurate judgments can override reliance on stereotypes. Instead of trying to expend as little cognitive energy as possible, people who are motivated to be accurate are likely to be more systematic and more deliberative in their information processing ( Chaiken, 1980 ). This type of motivation can originate in the expectation of interdependence—as when evaluators expect their outcomes to be tied to the evaluated person’s performance. In this case, self-interest can promote both the search for relevant information and a careful consideration of it ( Fiske, 2000 ). The motivation to be accurate can also stem from a desire to “do the right thing.” That is, concern about potentially being bigoted can weaken the effects of stereotype-based expectations and prompt more deliberative strategies—whether the concern is based on personal values or on making a good impression.

Motivation to be accurate also can be affected by the degree to which the evaluator is held accountable for his or her judgments. When accountability motivates people to appear competent and/or unbiased, it tends to inhibit the use of expectations in evaluation and encourage the use of more complex strategies ( Tetlock, 1983 ). Holding people accountable prompts them to be more attentive to performance and gather information more systematically ( Mero, Motowidlo, & Anna, 2003 )—actions that eventually allow them to justify their judgments. Having to explain the evaluative judgments they make appears to encourage people to expend cognitive resources and rely less on stereotype-based expectations in making judgments and decisions.

Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes

In addition to functioning in a descriptive way, gender stereotypes are also prescriptive ( Eagly & Karau, 2002 ; Heilman, 2001 ). That is, they not only dictate the attributes that describe men and women but also prescribe what men and women should be like. Although their content is similar to that of descriptive gender stereotypes ( Prentice & Carranza, 2002 ), the mechanisms through which they produce gender discrimination are different. In this section, we discuss how prescriptive gender stereotypes can negatively affect women in work settings and review research that documents these effects.

Whereas descriptive gender stereotypes label men as agentic and women as communal, prescriptive gender stereotypes establish that men should be agentic and that women should be communal. These directives have long been reflected in people’s beliefs about ideal men and women and in their attitudes about sex roles and responsibilities ( Spence & Helmreich, 1978 ). To understand how prescriptive stereotypes work, researchers have likened them to injunctive social norms ( Cialdini & Trost, 1998 ), which delineate how people should act ( Eagly & Karau, 2002 ; Heilman, 2001 ). Typically, evaluators react to social norm violation by punishing the offender, and the same is the case for women who violate prescriptive gender stereotypes. Thus, when women act in ways that are contrary to those “shoulds”—either by being agentic ( Rudman, 1998 ) or by failing to be communal ( Heilman & Chen, 2005 )—they tend to be penalized.

Women who deviate from prescriptive stereotypes are subject to the same consequences that people encounter when they violate social norms—censure, disapproval, and distaste ( Heilman, 2001 ). Thus, whereas descriptive gender stereotypes promote perceptions of women’s incompetence, a violation of prescriptive gender stereotypes induces derogation and social rejection. In behaving counter to female stereotypes, women are thought deficient in communality, which promotes the perception that they are interpersonally hostile ( Heilman, 1995 ), cold ( Porter & Geis, 1981 ), pushy, selfish, and manipulative ( Heilman, 2001 ). Not surprisingly, they also are disliked (Heilman, 2001 , 2012 ).

Although stereotype-violating women are often regarded as competent ( Rudman, 1998 ), the dislike and derogation they face can translate to unfavorable work outcomes—diminished pay and fewer recommendations for hiring, rewards, and promotion. People who are disliked—whether man or woman—tend to be evaluated negatively on the job ( Heilman et al., 2004 ). Because success in many organizational roles depends on social capital, employees who are considered likable are more likely to establish high-quality relationships ( Casciaro & Lobo, 2005 ), which ultimately translate to more challenging work assignments and better performance evaluations ( Dienesch & Liden, 1986 ; Harris, Kacmar, & Witt, 2005 ).

Engaging in Stereotypically Male Behaviors

Prescriptive gender stereotypes create a dilemma for working women. In their quest to dispel stereotype-based expectations and appear competent, women must often engage in behaviors that are stereotypically male in nature. However, these behaviors are considered to be “off limits” for women, and those who display the requisite behaviors for success tend to face backlash for “behaving like men” ( Rudman, 1998 ). Research has shown that women who behave in masculine ways pay a price for their norm violation.

Communication.

Direct and assertive communication is imperative to success. However, research suggests that people react differently to men and women who engage in these stereotypically masculine communication styles. For example, Carli, LaFleur, and Loeber, (1995) found that when women communicated directly and assertively, they had less influence on male listeners than when they communicated in a hesitant and tentative style. They also demonstrated that men were less influenced by a competent woman than by either a competent man or an incompetent woman. It therefore seems that communicating effectively, although a boon for men, is harmful for women.

Style is not the only aspect of communication that matters. Engaging in “too much” communication can also result in disapproval for women. Brescoll (2012) found that female executives who talked disproportionately more than others received unfavorable evaluations relative to their male counterparts. Instead, female leaders were seen as adequately effective only when they talked disproportionately less than others. Taking up too much “time on the floor” implies brashness, lack of consideration, and a grab for power. Evidently, speaking up is good for men, but it is a negative for women.

Leadership Behaviors.

Leadership is often thought of as a male role requiring male attributes, but recent work has shown that not all styles of leadership are thought to be masculine in nature ( Koenig et al., 2011 ). This suggests that there are some leadership behaviors and styles that do not violate prescriptive gender norms. Although this is welcome news, it does not erase the fact that women are limited in their access to the full range of leadership behaviors accessible to men. Thus, research shows that women are penalized for engaging in autocratic or directive forms of leadership, although not for leadership behavior that is more democratic and participative ( Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992 ). Similarly, female leaders who discipline their subordinates tend to be viewed more negatively than men ( Atwater, Carey, & Waldman, 2001 ), though there is some indication that this does not occur when they deliver discipline using a more “considerate,” gender-appropriate leadership style ( Brett, Atwater, & Waldman, 2005 ). These examples demonstrate the contracted range of leadership behaviors available to women; they are restricted to those that are consistent with gender prescriptions if they are not to be penalized in the leadership role.

Research suggests that women are expected to be more emotional than men ( Prentice & Carranza, 2002 ). However, two emotions that may be functional in work contexts—anger and pride—are seen as distinctly male, and women are likely to face penalties when they display them. For example, Brescoll and Uhlmann (2008) demonstrated that angry women were conferred less status and received lower salaries than angry men. Moreover, although not directly examined in work settings, the display of pride has been shown to have a negative effect on women. Tracy and Beall (2011) found that pride was regarded as attractive when enacted by men, but as unattractive when displayed by women—a finding that is likely to be indicative of negativity toward working women.

Self-Promotion.

Many have touted self-promotion as integral to career success. Yet, the practice of promoting oneself runs counter to directives that women should be modest and self-effacing. This incongruity paints a complex picture for women’s self-promotion prospects. Although both men and women receive favorable competence assessments when they promote themselves, self-promoting women are liked less than self-promoting men ( Rudman, 1998 ). Self-promotion—a necessary quality for getting ahead—can backfire for women.

Negotiation.

Effective negotiations are linked to better outcomes for employees, including increased compensation, opportunities, and promotions. Yet, women are prevented from bargaining successfully, as doing so necessitates self-promotion and agency. For example, Bowles et al. (2007) found that women who initiated a negotiation for higher pay were rated as less hirable than men who engaged in the same behavior. Additional studies suggest that these negative ratings are a result of prescriptive stereotype violation. When a negotiation was said to serve communal aims, such as when women negotiated on behalf of others or invoked relational concerns during negotiations, they were not found to incur negative consequences ( Amanatullah & Morris, 2010 ; Bowles & Babcock, 2013 ).

Misbehaviors.

Workplace misbehaviors are punishable for all employees, but the prescriptions of women as “wholesome” and men as “rebellious” ( Prentice & Carranza, 2002 ) indicate that women may face stiffer penalties than men for “behaving badly.” Recent research supports this idea. Bowles and Gelfand (2010) found that men displayed a greater propensity to punish female deviants than male deviants—an effect that remained regardless of the severity of the misbehavior. Even behaviors that are deemed “should nots” for everyone can be especially costly for women.

Failing to Engage in Stereotypically Female Behaviors

Although most of the literature on prescriptive gender stereotype violation focuses on the consequences for women who engage in stereotypically male behaviors, women can also incur punishment for failing to act in ways that are stereotypically female. Below, we review the ways in which women incur negative consequences when they “shirk their duties.”

Altruistic Citizenship Behavior.

According to prescriptive gender stereotypes, women are expected to be sensitive, friendly, and cooperative ( Prentice & Carranza, 2002 ). Thus, behaviors that involve helping and assisting others may be regarded as compulsory for women. If women are more expected than men to help others, altruistic behaviors that are traditionally thought to be discretionary may become required for women and remain optional for men. A study by Heilman and Chen (2005) bears this out. Women were evaluated unfavorably when they failed to help a coworker, but men were not. When they did help, women’s help was devalued relative to men, and this was reflected in their organizational rewards. Organizational data provides additional support: Citizenship behaviors yield stronger effects on the salary and promotion of men than of women ( Allen, 2006 ).

Interpersonal Justice.

Prescriptive gender stereotypes suggest that women should be kind and considerate ( Prentice & Carranza, 2002 ), and these requirements overlap with the rules of interpersonal justice. Interpersonal justice requires that decision-makers treat subordinates with politeness and respect during the decision-making process. Although this form of justice is expected of all managers, women who fail to engage in it may encounter more adversity than men because of its convergence with female gender prescriptions. Research has shown this to be the case. It has been demonstrated that not behaving in an interpersonally fair manner results in more negativity directed at women than men; however, there are no differences in reactions to men and women when they engage in unfair behavior that is not associated with gender prescriptions ( Caleo, 2016 ).

Collaboration.

Gender prescriptions also dictate that women be relationship-oriented rather than self-oriented. This suggests that women who are individualistic or competitive rather than collaborative in their orientation will be seen as in violation of gender norms. In the last section, we reported research indicating the negativity that greets women leaders who fail to adopt democratic leadership styles ( Eagly et al., 1992 ), and who fail to use two-way communication in their disciplinary behavior ( Brett et al., 2005 ). However, negativity for not being collaborative extends beyond leadership situations. Women who choose not to collaborate with others when the opportunity is presented to them have been shown to be rewarded less and viewed less favorably than men who similarly decide not to collaborate ( Chen, 2008 ).

Success as a Violation

Women need not explicitly violate prescriptive gender stereotypes in work settings to provoke dislike and derogation. Rather, they can provoke these reactions by indirectly defying prescriptive stereotypes and succeeding in male-typed jobs. Thus, even when women manage to disprove perceptions of their incompetence and overcome the barriers set by descriptive gender stereotypes, prescriptive gender stereotypes create a new obstacle. Evidence supports the notion that women are penalized for success. In one study of 30,000 managers, Lyness and Judiesch (1999) found that career advancement and promotion becomes more challenging for women than for men as they ascend the corporate hierarchy—a finding that remains after adjusting for age, tenure, and education. But why is this the case?

To understand how women’s success in male-typed fields violates gender norms, it is necessary to revisit the proposition that male-typed fields are thought to require agency. If a person succeeds in such a domain, raters assume that it is because he or she behaved in ways that are stereotypically male. For men, this is acceptable and gender-consistent. However, this same behavior is gender-inconsistent for women, and they consequently are perceived as inappropriately agentic and, by inference, lacking in communality. The consequences of this assumption stretch further. Because these successful women are seen as having behaved agentically and not communally, they are thought to have violated gender norms. As a result, they encounter the same reactions that they would for violating the prescriptive stereotypes discussed above—they are disliked, personally derogated, and characterized as cold, selfish, and interpersonally hostile ( Heilman et al., 2004 ). Instead of being admired for their successes, women are often vilified.

Evidence indicates that women are penalized for success only when the situation in which they are successful is male gender-typed. When the position is female-typed or when the job is thought to necessitate communality, women are not disliked or derogated for their success ( Heilman & Wallen, 2010 ). This research offers empirical support for the notion that people’s distaste for successful women is driven by the perception that a violation of prescriptive gender stereotypes has taken place. It is success in male-typed fields, not success in-and-of itself, that constitutes a violation of gender norms.

Though it is clear that the violation of prescriptive stereotypes is a driving force in reactions to successful women, are these reactions driven by the perception that women are overly agentic or by the perception that they lack communality? Research offers support for both hypotheses. Heilman and Okimoto (2007) found that the provision of information about a successful woman’s communality can eliminate the negative effects of her success, suggesting that it is the perceived deficit in communality that drives negative reactions to successful women. However, other research suggests that the negative reactions are driven by inflated perceptions of agency and dominance ( Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012 ). It therefore is possible that agency and communality perceptions both play a key role in determining reactions to successful women. More work on this issue is needed.

Moderators of Prescriptive Bias

In our discussion of descriptive gender stereotypes, we presented a series of conditions that moderate the extent to which gender bias and discrimination will occur. The research related to moderators of the effects of prescriptive gender stereotypes is, however, less extensive. Unlike descriptive gender stereotypes, prescriptive gender stereotypes are based on beliefs about the way things should be ( Gill, 2004 ). These beliefs are deeply entrenched and value based—violations have been shown to provoke feelings of moral outrage ( Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010 ). Consequently, the bias and discriminatory behavior that result are not due to cognitive distortion and faulty information processing, and interventions that seek to encourage more deliberative information processing or eliminate ambiguity are not likely to be effective in curbing their detrimental effects.

There are, however, several conditions that affect whether prescriptive stereotypes give rise to gender bias—especially in reactions to women’s success. As with descriptive gender stereotypes, the activation of stereotypes is critical. If a woman’s gender is not salient, then gender norms are not operative and penalties for success or other perceived gender violations are not likely to be forthcoming; thus, all the issues we discussed earlier about the activation of stereotypes are relevant here as well. In addition, the gender-type of the context is key. We have already pointed out the importance of the gender-type of the field in determining whether women are penalized for success ( Heilman & Wallen, 2010 ). Because it is only male-typed fields that are thought to involve behavior that violates female stereotypes, women who thrive in other fields remain unscathed. This suggests that if traditionally male jobs and roles were characterized in ways that are less exclusively agentic, then a woman’s success would not imply violation of gender norms. Although there has been work on the feminization of jobs and occupations with respect to descriptive gender stereotypes, this work has not yet extended to prescriptive gender stereotypes. According to the ideas presented here, broadening of the conception of what behaviors are necessary for success should affect whether a woman’s success is perceived to be a violation of gender norms and the consequent reactions to her.

Other moderators of the effects of prescriptive gender stereotypes involve negating the negative perceptions of the prescription-violating woman. Because women who act contrary to gender norms tend to be seen as deficient in communality, conditions that amplify a woman’s communal qualities can undercut the negative effects of the violation ( Heilman & Okimoto, 2007 ). Doing so can take several forms, including emphasizing motherhood status or dressing femininely ( Heilman & Okimoto, 2007 ), providing information about communal hobbies and activities ( Heilman & Okimoto, 2007 ), or exhibiting “feminine charm” in negotiations ( Kray, Locke, & Van Zant, 2012 ). It also can take the form of externally attributing agentic behavior, such as justifying a negotiation request by saying that a supervisor encouraged it ( Bowles & Babcock, 2013 ). Many of these communality boosts can be enacted by women themselves, and thus appear to provide a way for women to navigate around prescriptive gender stereotypes. However, it is important to remember that heightening the salience of femininity can actually contribute to descriptive bias and perceptions of incompetence. Therefore these strategies, if not closely monitored, can ultimately create new problems for the women using them.

Additional Issues and Questions for Future Research

Consequences for men.

In this chapter, we largely considered women as the primary targets of gender discrimination. Although the overwhelming majority of studies examining gender discrimination focus on the barriers that women face, more recent endeavors have examined the consequences that men may encounter. If we are correct about the processes underlying gender discrimination, then men should also incur negative outcomes when working in certain contexts and for engaging in certain behaviors.

Evidence that men are evaluated negatively for violating prescriptive gender stereotypes is gradually accumulating. Studies show that men are evaluated less favorably than women when they engage in stereotypically female behaviors—when they behave modestly ( Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010 ), request family leave ( Rudman & Mescher, 2013 ), experience family conflict ( Butler & Skattebo, 2004 ), and display agreeableness ( Judge, Livingston, & Hurst, 2012 ). Men are also punished for failing to engage in behaviors that are stereotypically male in nature, such as when they fail to help a woman with a physically demanding task ( Chen, 2008 ) and when they do not speak up in positions of power ( Brescoll, 2012 ).

In addition, research suggests that men can be penalized for succeeding in female-dominated occupations. Whereas success in male-typed roles implies agency, success in female-typed roles implies communality—suggesting that success for men in feminine positions entails a violation of prescriptive stereotypes. Heilman and Wallen (2010) found support for this idea, demonstrating that men who succeeded in a female-dominated job received unfavorable evaluations. However, the consequences that they incurred were not the same as the consequences that women face. Rather than being disliked and characterized as interpersonally hostile, norm-violating men are not respected and are regarded as wimpy and passive.

From the perspective of descriptive stereotypes, the evidence is not entirely clear. If a lack of fit creates the perception that women in male-typed jobs are incompetent, then similar thinking would suggest that men’s competence would be questioned in female-typed jobs. However, there is not substantial evidence that men’s competence is questioned in these situations—rather only that men are not given the edge, and they and women are evaluated similarly ( Heilman & Caleo, 2017 ; Heilman et al., 2017 ). In fact, some evidence points to men being advantaged in occupations that are female-typed, with studies showing that men earn more than women in female-dominated jobs ( Hegewisch & Hudiburg, 2014 ). It also has been proposed that men ride a glass escalator in female-dominated professions ( Williams, 1992 ). Thus, the reactions predicted by the lack of fit model may not hold in the same way for men as they do for women. Additional research is necessary to systematically address this issue.

Evaluator Gender

There is good reason to think that differences would exist in men’s and women’s propensity to engage in gender bias. However, research does not bear this out. Most studies examining gender discrimination fail to yield differences in the responses of men and women—a result that is counterintuitive. It would seem likely that women would not only identify with other women, but also that they would be particularly attentive to the way in which women are pigeonholed by descriptive gender stereotypes. It also would seem likely that women would be more conscious of the constraints created by prescriptive gender stereotypes and consequently more forgiving than men when responding to women who violate them.

Yet, given the universality of gender stereotypes, perhaps we should not be surprised by the lack of difference between men and women as evaluators. Not only do men and women share the same gender stereotypes but they also share the same conceptions of male gender-type jobs, suggesting that both should perceive a lack of fit between the two. Moreover, they share the same expectations for how men and women “should” behave and therefore are likely to similarly view agentic behaviors enacted by women as violations of gender norms. Despite this, however, the fact that women have not been found to judge other women differently from how men judge them seems incongruous and disturbing—perhaps because it defies our ideas about in-group loyalty and solidarity as well as notions about the power of shared experience and common fate to shape perceptions and behavior. There are doubtlessly individual differences that influence this effect, such as the strength of gender identity and gender stereotype adherence. Individual differences in life experience, such as women’s personal experiences with discrimination ( Ellemers, Van den Heuvel, De Gilder, Maass, & Bonvini, 2004 ), can also moderate this effect.

Research has focused on men’s and women’s similarly negative reactions to successful women in the workplace, exploring divergent explanations for why they respond as they do. It has been suggested that unlike men, who are motivated to keep women in their place so they do not threaten male superiority in the workplace, women respond negatively to successful women because of social comparison processes and their desire to maintain their sense of competence ( Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008 ). Research has also demonstrated that perceptions of competitive threat are not limited only to peers, but also experienced by women in positions of authority, producing the queen bee syndrome ( Derks, Ellemers, Van Laar, & De Groot, 2011 ; Ellemers et al., 2004 ). More work is needed to provide insight into the potentially different motivations men and women have in responding to women’s success and the important implications these may have for gender differences in other reactions to working women.

Intersection of Gender with Other Social Categories

Although discrimination researchers have tended to investigate gender, race, and ethnicity as separate entities, these social categories do not exist in a vacuum. Thus, it is important to examine whether the findings discussed in this chapter change when other social categories are also taken into account. Do the effects become additive, suggesting that racial or ethnic minority women face additional adversity in the workplace? Or are they interactive? Some recent studies have focused on this issue, and the findings paint a complex picture.

In a study examining the notion that Black women suffer from relative “invisibility,” Sesko and Biernat (2010) found that people are least likely to correctly attribute statements made by Black women, suggesting that they are more often the target of bias than White women. However, other research suggests that things are more complicated. It has, for example, been shown that being Black is actually a deterrent against gender bias. Livingston, Rosette, and Washington (2012) found that White female leaders encountered derogation for displaying dominance, but that Black female leaders did not. Moreover, there is research indicating that patterns of gender discrimination may be reversed for certain ethnicities, with Derous, Ryan, and Serlie (2015) finding that recruiters evaluated Arab men less favorably than Arab women, and Livingston et al. (2012) finding that Black men, and not Black women, were penalized for exhibiting dominance.

Evidently, there is much more to do to understand how gender discrimination is affected by social category membership. Consistent with the literature discussed in this chapter, future research should examine whether characterizations of and gender prescriptions for women in differing racial and ethnic groups differ from stereotypes traditionally associated with women at large. It also should continue to chronicle the different reactions to women from differing social groups. Such work not only will enhance our understanding of the way in which gender bias and discrimination affects these women but also will enhance our understanding of the processes underlying gender discrimination more generally.

Tracking Changes

Although gender stereotypes continue to dog women in their attempts to advance their careers, small indications of change are coming to light. Today, there is greater personal and organizational awareness of the issues we have discussed in this chapter, and efforts to counteract gender stereotypes in evaluation processes abound. Moreover, ideas about what characteristics are required for effective leadership have shown signs of change—whether due to the rising numbers of women in the management ranks or to the change in perception of what it takes to be a good manager or leader.

Despite leadership’s traditionally masculine connotation, popular opinion reflects shifting attitudes concerning what it means to be a good leader. Specifically, some communal qualities, such as the ability to build relationships, address the needs of followers, and minimize hierarchy, are now deemed important for leaders to have. This idea, termed the “female leadership advantage” ( Eagly & Carli, 2003 ; Vecchio, 2002 ), suggests that leadership positions may begin to necessitate behaviors that are more in line with female stereotypes. In fact, contemporary theories of leadership, such as transformational ( Bass & Avolio, 1994 ) and authentic leadership ( Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011 ), emphasize meaningful and open leader-follower relationships, and these requirements correspond with stereotypically feminine behaviors. If this is indeed the case, women may be considered adequate and even exceptional leaders who are well suited to top positions. It also could temper the effects of prescriptive gender stereotypes because success in leadership will not necessarily imply the occurrence of agentic behavior. However, the evidence is mixed. Although some studies suggest that women in top management sometimes receive more favorable evaluations than their male counterparts ( Rosette & Tost, 2010 ), most research still finds a pro-male leadership bias. However, if attitudes continue to change, so may the prevalence of gender discrimination in organizational contexts.

There also is indication of some change in the characterizations of women. According to recent research, people believe that women’s attributes have begun to converge with men’s ( Diekman & Eagly, 2000 ), and in at least one investigation, women were actually found to be described in more agentic terms now than they were 25 years ago ( Duehr & Bono, 2006 ). However, the results of other investigations do not bear this out. They have found gender stereotypes to be stable over time ( Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow, 2001 ), and men and women to continue to be described very differently from one another ( Spence & Buckner, 2000 ). Still other investigations have found the current situation to be more mixed ( Hentschel et al., 2013 ). Thus, there are some signs that perceptions of women’s agency have shifted over time, and, if this is so, it bodes well for women’s future prospects. Even if coveted positions and roles continue to be seen as requiring agency rather than communality, women may no longer be as vulnerable to gender discrimination because of perceived lack of fit. Research should continue to monitor whether both of these changes are indeed afoot.

Summary and Conclusion

In this chapter, we considered the different ways in which gender stereotypes create obstacles for women in the workplace. These challenges are wide-ranging and troublesome, with descriptive gender stereotypes resulting in women not being seen as competent and prescriptive gender stereotypes resulting in them not being seen as likable. Specifically, we discussed how descriptive stereotypes promote the perception that women in male-typed jobs lack the requisite attributes for success. We also examined how prescriptive stereotypes create norms for how women “should” and “should not” behave and described the derogation and social penalties that women incur when they violate these norms. We also noted the conditions under which gender stereotypes are most and least likely to promote gender bias and discrimination.

Despite changes in the landscape for women in the workplace, considerable inequities continue to exist, and the evidence discussed in this chapter points to gender discrimination as a likely cause. Today, women are still thought to lack what it takes to thrive in male-typed positions, and they are often shunned for behaving in ways that conflict with gender prescriptions. Understanding why these inequities occur is an important first step in trying to minimize them, and we hope that scholars continue to heed this call.

Abele, A. ( 2003 ). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85 , 768–776.

Google Scholar

Amanatullah, E. , & Morris, M. ( 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.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 256–267.

Allen, T. D. ( 2006 ). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards.   Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 36 , 120–143.

Atwater, L. E. , Carey, J. A. , & Waldman, D. A. ( 2001 ). Gender and discipline in the workplace: Wait until your father gets home.   Journal of Management , 27 , 537–561.

Baltes, B. , & Parker, C. ( 2000 ). Reducing the effects of performance expectations on behavioral ratings.   Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 82 , 237–267.

Banaji, M. R. , Hardin, C. , & Rothman, A. J. ( 1993 ). Implicit stereotyping in person judgment.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 , 272–281.

Bass, B. M. , & Avolio, B. J. ( 1994 ). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Preview

Bauer, C. , & Baltes, B. ( 2002 ). Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance evaluations.   Sex Roles , 47 , 465–476.

Biernat, M. , Fuegen, K. , & Kobrynowicz, D. ( 2010 ). Shifting standards and the inference of incompetence: Effects of formal and informal evaluation tools.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 , 855–868.

Bowles, H. R. , & Babcock, L. ( 2013 ). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 37 , 80–96.

Bowles, H. R. , Babcock, L. , & Lai, L. ( 2007 ). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask.   Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 103 , 84–103.

Bowles, H. R. , & Gelfand, M. J. ( 2010 ). Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance.   Psychological Science , 21 , 49–54.

Brescoll, V. L. ( 2012 ). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations.   Administrative Science Quarterly , 56 , 622–641.

Brescoll, V. L. , & Uhlmann, E. L. ( 2008 ). Can angry women get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and workplace emotion expression.   Psychological Science , 19 , 268–275.

Brett, J. M. , Atwater, L. E. , & Waldman, D. A. ( 2005 ). Effective delivery of workplace discipline.   Group and Organization Management , 30 , 487–513.

Brett, J. M. , & Stroh, L. K. ( 1997 ). Jumping ship: Who benefits from an external labor market career strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 331–341.

Broverman, I. K. , Vogel, S. R. , Broverman, D. M. , Clarkson, F. E. , & Rosenkrantz, P. S. ( 1972 ). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal.   Journal of Social Issues , 28 , 59–78.

Butler, A. , & Skattebo, A. L. ( 2004 ). What is acceptable for women may not be for men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job performance ratings.   Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77 , 553–564.

Caleo, S. (2016). Are organizational justice rules gendered? Reactions to men’s and women’s justice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 1422–1435.

Cantor, N. , & Mischel, W. ( 1979 ). Prototypicality and personality: Effects on free recall and personality impressions.   Journal of Research in Personality , 13 , 187–205.

Carli, L. L. , LaFleur, S. J. , & Loeber, C. C. ( 1995 ). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 , 1030–1041.

Casciaro, T. , & Sousa-Lobo, M. ( 2005 ). Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks.   Harvard Business Review , 83 , 92–99.

Catalyst. (2014a). Statistical overview of women in the workplace . Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace

Catalyst. (2014b). Women CEOs of the Fortune 500 . Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000

Cejka, M. A. , & Eagly, A. H. ( 1999 ). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the gender segregation of employment.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 , 413–423.

Chaiken, S. ( 1980 ). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 , 752–766.

Chen, J. J. (2008). Ordinary vs. extraordinary: Differential reactions to men’s and women’s prosocial behavior in the workplace (Unpublished dissertation).

Cialdini, R. B. , & Trost, M. R. ( 1998 ). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert , S. T. Fiske , & L. Gardner (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp.151–192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Conway, M. , Pizzamiglio, M. T. , & Mount, L. ( 1996 ). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 , 25–38.

Davison, H. K. , & Burke, M. J. ( 2000 ). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation.   Journal of Vocational Behavior , 56 , 225–248.

DeNisi, A. S. , Cafferty, T. P. , & Meglino, B. M. ( 1984 ). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions.   Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 33 , 360–396.

Derks, B. , Van Laar, C. , Ellemers, N. , & De Groot, K. ( 2011 ). Gender bias primes elicit queen bee responses among senior police women.   Psychological Science , 22 , 1243–1249.

Derous, E. , Ryan, A. M. , & Serlie, A. W. ( 2015 ). Double jeopardy upon resume screening: When Achmed is less employable than Aisha.   Personnel Psychology , 68 , 659–696.

Diekman, A. B. , & Eagly, A. H. ( 2000 ). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 , 1171–1188.

Dienesch, R. M. , & Liden, R. C. ( 1986 ). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development.   Academy of Management Review , 11 , 618–634.

Duehr, E. E. , & Bono, J. E. ( 2006 ). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology , 59 , 815–846.

Eagly, A. H. , & Carli, L. L. ( 2003 ). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence.   Leadership Quarterly , 14 , 807–834.

Eagly, A. H. , & Carli, L. L. ( 2007 ). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H. , & Karau, S. J. ( 2002 ). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.   Psychological Review , 109 , 573–598.

Eagly, A. H. , Makhijani, M. J. , & Klonsky, B. G. ( 1992 ). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.   Psychological Bulletin , 111 , 3–22.

Eagly, A. H. , Mladinic, A. , & Otto, S. ( 1991 ). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? Psychology of Women Quarterly , 15 , 203–216.

Eagly, A. H. , & Steffen, V. J. ( 1984 ). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46 , 735–754.

Ellemers, N. , Van den Heuvel, H. , De Gilder, D. , Maass, A. , & Bonvini, A. ( 2004 ). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology , 43 , 315–338.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2014). Sex-based discrimination . Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

Favero, J. L. , & Ilgen, D. R. ( 1989 ). The effects of ratee prototypicality on rater observation and accuracy.   Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 19 , 932–946.

Fiske, S. T. ( 2000 ). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination . The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fiske, S. T. , & Neuberg, S. L. ( 1990 ). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Gaucher, D. , Friesen, J. , & Kay, A. C. ( 2011 ). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 109–128.

Gill, M. J. ( 2004 ). When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive stereotyping can bias judgments under conditions that discourage descriptive stereotyping.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 619–632.

Gardner, W. L. , Cogliser, C. C. , Davis, K. M. , & Dickens, M. P. ( 2011 ). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda.   Leadership Quarterly , 22 , 1120–1145.

Harris, K. , Kacmar, K. , & Witt, L. ( 2005 ). The curvilinear relationship between relationship quality and turnover intentions.   Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 363–378.

Hegewisch, A. , & Hudiburg, S. K. (2014). The gender wage gap by occupation and by race and ethnicity, 2013 . Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-and-by-race-and-ethnicity-2013

Hegewisch, A. , Williams, C. , Hartmann, H. , & Hudiburg, S. (2014). The gender wage gap: 2013 . Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-2013-differences-by-race-and-ethnicity-no-growth-in-real-wages-for-women

Heilman, M. E. ( 1983 ). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model.   Research in Organizational Behavior , 5 , 269–298..

Heilman, M. E. ( 1995 ). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know.   Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 10 , 3–26.

Heilman, M. E. ( 2001 ). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder.   Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 657–674.

Heilman, M. E. ( 2012 ). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias.   Research in Organizational Behavior , 32 , 113–135.

Heilman, M. E. , & Blader, S. ( 2001 ). Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: The effects of gender rarity.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 188–193.

Heilman, M. E. , Block, C. J. , Martell, R. F. , & Simon, M. C. ( 1989 ). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of males, females and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology , 74 , 935–942.

Heilman, M. E. , Block, C. J. , & Stathatos, P. ( 1997 ). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity.   Academy of Management Journal , 40 , 603–625.

Heilman, M. E. , & Caleo, S. ( 2017 ). Who gets credit and who gets blamed? Reactions to men’s and women’s joint work . Unpublished manuscript.

Heilman, M. E. , & Chen, J. J. ( 2005 ). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 431–441.

Heilman, M. E. , & Eagly, A. H. ( 2008 ). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination.   Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 1 , 393–398.

Heilman, M. E. , & Haynes, M. C. ( 2005 ). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 905–916.

Heilman, M. E. , & Haynes, M. C. ( 2008 ). Subjectivity in the appraisal process: A facilitator of gender bias in work settings. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common knowledge: Psychological science in court. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heilman, M. E. , Manzi, M. F. , & Caleo, S. ( 2017 ). Updating impressions: The differential effects of new performance information on evaluations of women and men. Unpublished manuscript.

Heilman, M. E. , Martell, R. F. , & Simon, M. C. ( 1988 ). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job applicants.   Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 41 , 98–110.

Heilman, M. E. , & Okimoto, T. G. ( 2007 ). Why are women penalized for success at male-typed tasks? The implied communality deficit.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 81–92.

Heilman, M. E. , & Okimoto, T. G. ( 2008 ). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 189–198.

Heilman, M. E. , & Stopeck, M. H. ( 1985 ). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different causal attributions for males and females.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 70 , 379–388.

Heilman, M. E. , & Wallen, A. S. ( 2010 ). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 664–667.

Heilman, M. E. , Wallen, A. S. , Fuchs, D. , & Tamkins, M. M. ( 2004 ). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-type tasks.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 416–427.

Heilman, M. E. , & Welle, B. ( 2006 ). Disadvantaged by diversity? The effects of diversity goals on competence perceptions.   Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 36 , 1291–1319.

Hentschel, T. , Heilman, M. E. , & Peus, C. (2013). Have perceptions of women and men changed? Gender stereotypes and self-ratings of men and women . Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Heslin, P. A. , Latham, G. P. , & VandeWalle, D. ( 2005 ). The effect of implicit person theory on performance appraisals.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 842–856.

Hoobler, J. M. , Lemmon, G. , & Wayne, S. J. ( 2014 ). Women’s managerial aspirations from a human capital perspective.   Journal of Management , 40 , 703–730.

Johnson, J. T. , & Judd, C. M. ( 1983 ). Overlooking the incongruent: Categorization biases in the identification of political statements.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 45 , 978–997.

Judge, T. A. , Livingston, B. A. , & Hurst, C. ( 2012 ). Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 102 , 390–407.

Kanter, R. M. ( 1977 ). Men and women of the corporation . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Koenig, A. M. , Eagly, A. H. , Mitchell, A. A. , & Ristikari, T. ( 2011 ). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms.   Psychological Bulletin , 137 , 616–642.

Kray, L. J. , Locke, C. , & Van Zant, A. ( 2012 ). Feminine charm: An experimental analysis of its costs and benefits in negotiations.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1343–1357.

Kunda, Z. , Sinclair, L. , & Griffin, D. ( 1997 ). Equal ratings but separate meanings: Stereotypes and construal of traits.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 , 720–734.

Livingston, R. W. , Rosette, A. S. , & Washington, E. F. ( 2012 ). Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders.   Psychological Science , 23 , 354–358.

Lueptow, L. B. , Garovich-Szabo, L. , & Lueptow, M. B. ( 2001 ). Social change and the persistence of sex typing: 1974–1997.   Social Forces , 80 , 1–36.

Lyness, K. S. , & Heilman, M. E. ( 2006 ). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 777–785.

Lyness, K. S. , & Judiesch, M. K. ( 1999 ). Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into management positions? Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54 , 158–173.

Mero, N. P. , Motowidlo, S. J. , & Anna, A. L. ( 2003 ). Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy.   Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33 , 2493–2514.

Morrison, A. M. , White, R. P. , & Van Velsor, E. ( 1987 ). Breaking the glass ceiling. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Moss-Racusin, C. A. , Dovidio, J. F. , Brescoll, V. L. , Graham, M. J. , & Handelsman, J. ( 2013 ). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109 , 16474–16479.

Moss-Racusin, C. A. , Phelen, J. E. , & Rudman, L. A. ( 2010 ). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men.   Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 11 , 140–151.

Nieva, V. F. , & Gutek, B. A. ( 1980 ). Sex effects on evaluation.   Academy of Management Review , 5 , 267–276.

Norton, M. I. , Vandello, J. A. , & Darley, J. M. ( 2004 ). Casuistry and social category bias.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 , 817–831.

Nosek, B. , Banaji, M. , & Greenwald, A. ( 2002 ). Math = male, me = female, therefore math not = me.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 , 44–59.

Okimoto, T. G. , & Brescoll, V. L. ( 2010 ). The price of power: Power-seeking and backlash against female politicians.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 , 923–936.

Parks-Stamm, E. J. , Heilman, M. E. , & Hearns, K. A. ( 2008 ). Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of successful women.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 237–247.

Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. , Walker, L. S. , & Woehr, D. J. ( 2014 ). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators.   Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1129–1145.

Porter, N. , & Geis, F. L. ( 1981 ). Women and nonverbal leadership cues: When seeing is not believing. In C. Mayo & N. Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp. 39–61). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Powell, G. N. , Butterfield, D. A. , & Parent, J. D. ( 2002 ). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management , 28 , 177–193.

Prentice, D. A. , & 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.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 26 , 269–281.

Rosette, A. S. , & Tost, L. P. ( 2010 ). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 , 221–235.

Rudman, L. A. ( 1998 ). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 , 629–645.

Rudman, L. A. , Moss-Racusin, C. A. , Phelan, J. E. , & Nauts, S. ( 2012 ). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice toward female leaders.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 48 , 165–179.

Rudman, L. A. , & Mescher, K. ( 2013 ). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues , 69 , 322–340.

Sackett, P. R. , Dubois, C. L. , & Noe, A. W. ( 1991 ). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and black-white differences in performance ratings.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 76 , 263–267.

Scott, K. A. , & Brown, D. J. ( 2006 ). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior.   Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 101 , 230–242.

Schein, V. E. ( 1973 ). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 57 , 95–100.

Schein, V. E. ( 2001 ). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management.   Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 675–688.

Sesko, A. K. , & Biernat, M. ( 2010 ). Prototypes of race and gender: Invisibility of black women.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 356–360.

Spence, J. T. , & Buckner, C. ( 2000 ). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly , 24 , 44–63.

Spence, J. T. , & Helmreich, R. L. ( 1978 ). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Swim, J. , Borgida, E. , Maruyama, G. , & Myers, D. G. ( 1989 ). Joan McKay vs. John McKay: Is there a case for gender biased evaluations? Psychological Bulletin , 105 , 409–429.

Swim, J. K. , & Sanna, L. J. ( 1996 ). He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of observers’ attributions for women’s and men’s successes and failures.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 22 , 507–519.

Tetlock, P. E. ( 1983 ). Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions.   Social Psychology Quarterly , 46 , 285–292.

Tracy, J. L. , & Beall, A. T. ( 2011 ). Happy guys finish last: The impact of emotion expressions on sexual attraction.   Emotion , 11 , 1379–1387.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Table 11: Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity . Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

Uhlmann, E. L. , & Cohen, G. L. ( 2005 ). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination.   Psychological Science , 16 , 474–480.

Vecchio, R. P. ( 2002 ). Leadership and gender advantage.   Leadership Quarterly , 13 , 643–671.

Viswesvaran, V. , Ones, D. S. , & Schmidt, F. L. ( 1996 ). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 557–574.

Williams, C. L. ( 1992 ). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions.   Social Problems , 39 , 253–267.

Williams, J. , & Best, D. ( 1990 ), Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study (rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Gender Discrimination in the Workplace Essay

• Author Kimberly Ball
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Introduction

Gender discrimination remains a global issue of great concern within society and in the workplace environment. Discrimination at the workplace has several disadvantages such as low productivity and increased level of demoralization. Discrimination in the workplace remains a contentious issue of great concern that organizations should learn to address (Christy and Brad 12). Many people have argued that favoring specific individuals or communities within the workplace will enhance productivity while other people have an opinion that it greatly affects organizational performance. It is true that women, unlike men, continue to undergo unfair discrimination and unlawful discrimination in the workplace. Some people have argued that discrimination of women over certain activities are essential for the overall performance of the firm while other people also think that gender discrimination is a total violation of work ethics and labor laws (Jennings, para.19). The discussion is an argumentative essay that seeks to provide reasons against and reasons for gender discrimination in the workplace.

The Argument Against Women Discrimination in the Workplace

Increase in Productivity

It is important that the organization treat both men and women the same in the workplace. Offering them equal services in most cases tends to motivate them as they work towards the realization of the organizational success. Treating workers with respect improves their sense of satisfactorily as well as making them happy. However, they display a good image of the company even to the outsiders (Dipboye and Colella 13). Besides, it attracts more inventors to the company with the aim of achieving the set goals.

Additionally, On the other hand, any form of workers discrimination creates rivalry and hatred among employees. Consequently, it adversely affects the performance of the firm (Shih, Young, and Bucher, 145). It is vital for a company to show dignity to their employees for continuous productivity. More so, the company should develop laws that protect the employees’ welfare to reduce job harassment.

Business enterprises should improve in eliminating gender discrimination in the place of work. They should consider women’s rights as well as gender equality. It has effects on transgender and bisexual people thus affecting how they interact with their colleagues (Ghumman and Ryan 677). Companies should enact measures to stop and prevent discrimination to avoid lowering output productivity.

Gender biasing can result in mental illness such as tremor due to outside pressure from the people around (Wolfe 31). The victims usually develop depression and anxiety due to emotional loneliness. They can also engage in the use of drug substances, which has adverse outcomes such as affecting work capabilities and health complications. Mental health problems also affect the company’s managers due to unstable workers who produce low quality work.

It also creates conflicts between employees leading to increased hatred. Discrimination always brings harassment as some people receive favors while others are ill-treated. It develops disunity and divides employees as both sides have followers. As a result, job performance reduces due to office dramas and arguments.

However, conflicts in the workplace always lead to negative results as output production is affected. The organization should enact measures to stop gender biasing to create a peaceful working environment (Christy and Brad, 31). They should ensure that all workers regardless of gender are treated equally without any form of nuisance. It will make each worker appreciate another person as they work towards achieving the company’s goals.

Gender inequality in a workplace lowers company morale as most of the employees engage in worthless activities. The employees working morale is significantly affected due to the division between employees. The clients to are concerned as they receive ill treatments from the employees (Wolfe 4). It displays a lousy company image to the public hence lowering the number of potential clients. Therefore, companies should eliminate any form of gender discrimination to ensure they meet the target market. Adopting diversity in the workplace and managing it more efficiently ensures firms are ready to achieve their goals and target on top of attracting a wider range of potential employees.

Moreover, discriminating workers and hostility to them compromises their productivity level. Therefore, it is advisable that for the new firm venturing in the market to uphold fair treatment free from any form of discrimination as well as teamwork and the employee’s diversification to see the firm achieving its operational goals and policies (Rhode, para.10). On the other hand, some organization might decide to discriminate women given that research shows that women in most cases tend to register a lower level of productivity based on the manner and the nature of a job (Dipboye and Colella 17). It, therefore, indicates that discrimination has both the good and its negative effect on the overall performance of the business.

Women contribute to the company’s productivity as many works hard to keep their families. Many are single parents hence they ensure that they provide needs to people concerned. Increase in workers conflict has an impact in the office productivity due to reducing in work enthusiasm. To generate better produce any organization should ensure that there is peaceful coexistence between workers and their seniors.

It will increase the employee’s comfortability and enjoyment when attending to their duties. It also leads to a rise in the worker’s sense of belonging as they feel the need to perform their tasks (De Hart and Dayton, 16). Moreover, women biasing lower the companies productivity permanent measures should be enacted to curb the issue.

Arguments for the Need for Women Discrimination

Nature of Certain Work Types

Many organizations can decide to discriminate women based on the nature of certain jobs. Some job types only require the service of the man and not women. Additionally, some research shows that women have a lower rate of productivity and offering them a chance might not have the value that the organization needs for the realization of its major objective and even demands towards the realization of its goals (Denissen and Saguy 388). The management will decide not to employ women given that they also tend to be slow in the manner that they carry out their activities.

Some Job Types only Require Men and not Women

Certain jobs that require a lot of energy may not favor women at the workplace. Therefore, it will force the organization to look for the men and not women. For example, a construction firm will mainly prefer working with men and not women. Men are known to produce quality job as compared with women. Women are known not to like working under pressure or in certain conditions.

Women Tend to have many Excuses with Limited Flexibility as Compared to Men

It will be difficult for the women gender to work in places that seem to be of hardship as compared to men. Most women prefer working places that seems close to their homes and family so that they can give or attend to their family needs. It, therefore, shows that most organization will find it easy to avoid recruiting women in the workplace based on the numerous challenges. For instance, the moment that the firm decides to give a woman two months of  pregnancy leave, the firm will be facing employee and productivity challenges. Considering the above factors altogether, it will then be possible for the firm to discriminate women at the workplace.

Gender discrimination remains an issue of great concern. Based on my argument and reasoning, I take a point that women discrimination has many challenges in life as compared to the benefits. Discriminating women within organizations are harmful to the business performance given that it tends to demoralize the ability of the employees to deliver their level best to enhance productivity. Treating employees on an equal basis gives them a sense of belonging. Workers feel motivated when frequently involved in the decision-making process and into the daily operations. The primary goal of every firm is to work towards increasing profit realization through employee’s productivity, and most of the male counterpart will feel discouraged when women receive unfair treatment. However, in some cases, reasons such as low productivity might make it a better reason to discriminate against women in the workplace. Women tend to have a lower rate of workplace flexibility as compared to men, and that makes it a better reason for discriminating them.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

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 ]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Here’s How Bad Workplace Gender Bias Has Become

Gender bias continues to sprout in the workplace—both in explicit and covert ways.

A new survey of over 1,000 women by The Muse job board revealed that 41 percent of women have felt discriminated against based on their gender during a job interview, and 42 percent said they have encountered gender-biased or inappropriate questions during a job interview.

The report also showed that:

• Over 1 in 3 (38 percent) of women have hesitated to apply for a job due to perceived gender bias.
• 2 out of 3 think women in their industry have a hard time getting promoted.
• 55 percent do not feel there’s enough female representation in the leadership at their organization.
• 79 percent of women said they are more likely to seek out companies that have equal representation of women in managerial/leadership positions when looking for a new job.

While the findings are troubling, 63 percent of respondents did say they felt supported as a woman at work.

“We have made incredible progress over the past few years toward increasing gender equity in the workplace, but as the results of this survey reveal, there’s still so much more progress needed—particularly in the hiring and job interview process,” said Heather Tenuto, CEO of The Muse.

SHRM Online collected additional news on gender bias in the workplace.

New Report Finds 30 Different Biases Impact Women at Work

Gender bias and discrimination have held women back in the workplace for generations, but new research indicates gender-based judgments barely scratch the surface of ways professional women are criticized throughout their careers. Researchers identified 30 characteristics that women say were used against them in the workplace, including age, attractiveness and body size.

Gender Discrimination in Tech Industry Worsening

A 2023 report by tech career marketplace Dice revealed the percentage of tech professionals who said they experienced gender discrimination rose from 21 percent in 2021 to 26 percent in 2022.

To reduce discrimination, HR professionals should consider incorporating procedures to assess hiring processes and salaries, asking for feedback from the workforce via surveys and enlisting a third-party consultant to further identify opportunities for improvement.

( SHRM Online )

The Groups Hit Hardest by the Gender Pay Gap

While progress has been made toward eliminating the gender pay gap, some groups of women fare worse than others, according to an annual report. Overall, women in the U.S. earn 83 cents for every dollar a man earns. But women of color, mothers, women working remotely and women leaders are earning less than that. Here’s how employers can contribute to a more equitable workplace and keep their top female talent.

5 Ways to Reduce Gender Inequality at Work

​Research has shown that societal biases toward women have contributed to gender salary disparities in the U.S. Generation Z women have lower pay expectations than men have when entering the workforce, according to a recent report by career app Handshake. Handshake researchers explained that the difference in pay expectations “highlights the long-standing issue of gender pay disparity: Women's salary expectations are lower from the start, potentially reflecting historical pay gaps.”

Related Content

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Gender Discrimination

• Updated on  
• Jul 14, 2022

One of the challenges present in today’s society is gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is when someone is treated unequally based on their gender. Gender discrimination is not just present in the workplace but in schools, colleges and communities as well. As per the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  gender discrimination is illegal in India. This is also an important and common essay topic in schools and competitive exams such as IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. Let’s explore some samples of essay on gender discrimination and tips for writing an impactful essay.

Tips for Writing an Impactful Essay

If you want to write a scoring and deep impact essay, here are some tips for writing a perfect informative essay:

• The most important and first step is to write an introduction and background information about and related to the topic
• Then you are also required to use the formal style of writing and avoid using slang language
• To make an essay more impactful, write dates, quotations, and names to provide a better understanding
• You can use jargon wherever it is necessary as it sometimes makes an essay complicated
• To make an essay more creative, you can also add information in bulleted points wherever possible
• Always remember to add a conclusion where you need to summarise crucial points
• Once you are done read through the lines and check spelling and grammar mistakes before submission

Essay on Gender Discrimination in 200 Words

One of the important aspects of a democratic society is the elimination of gender discrimination. The root cause of this vigorous disease is the stereotypical society itself. When a child is born, the discrimination begins; if the child is male, he is given a car, bat and ball with blue, and red colour clothes, whereas when a child is female, she is given barbie dolls with pink clothes. We all are raised with a mentality that boys are good at sports and messy, but girls are not good at sports and are well organised. This discriminatory mentality has a deeper impact when girls are told not to work while boys are allowed to do much work. This categorising males and females into different categories discriminating based on gender are known as gender discrimination. Further, this discriminatory behaviour in society leads to hatred, injustice and much more. This gender discrimination is evident in every woman’s life at the workplace, in educational institutions, in sports, etc., where young girls and women are deprived of their rights and undervalued. This major issue prevailing in society can be solved only by providing equality to women and giving them all rights as given to men.

Essay on Gender Discrimination in 300 Words 

Gender Discrimination, as the term signifies, is discrimination or discriminatory behaviour based on gender. The stereotypical mindset of people in the past has led to the discrimination that women face today. According to Kahle Wolfe, in 2015, women earned 83% of the income paid to men by working the same hours. Almost all women are not only discriminated against based on their salaries but also on their looks.

Further, most women are allowed to follow a certain dress code depending upon the work field and the dress women wear also decides their future career.

This dominant male society teaches males that women are weak and innocent. Thus women are mostly victims and are targeted in crimes. For example, In a large portion of the globe, women are blamed for rapes despite being victims because of their clothes. This society also portrays women as weaker and not eligible enough to take a stand for themselves, leading to the major destruction of women’s personalities as men are taught to let women down. This mindset of people nowadays is a major social justice issue leading to gender discrimination in society.

Further, gender-based discrimination is evident across the globe in a plethora of things, including sports, education, health and law. Every 1 out of 3 women in the world is abused in various forms at some point in their lives by men. This social evil is present in most parts of the world; in India, women are burnt to death if they are incapable of affording financial requirements; in Egypt, women are killed by society if they are sensed doing something unclean in or out of their families, whereas in South Africa baby girls are abandoned or killed as they are considered as burden for the family. Thus gender discrimination can be only eliminated from society by educating people about giving equal rights and respect to every gender.

Top Universities for Gender Studies Abroad

UK, Canada and USA are the top three countries to study gender studies abroad. Here’s the list of top universities you can consider if you planning to pursue gender studies course abroad: 

We hope this blog has helped you in structuring a terrific essay on gender discrimination. Planning to ace your IELTS, get expert tips from coaches at Leverage Live by Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Essay on Gender Discrimination In Workplace

Students are often asked to write an essay on Gender Discrimination In Workplace in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Gender Discrimination In Workplace

What is gender discrimination.

Gender discrimination in the workplace means treating someone unfairly because of their gender. Often, women are the ones who face this kind of unfairness. They might get paid less than men for doing the same job or may not get promoted just because they are women.

Types of Discrimination

There are different ways gender discrimination can happen at work. Sometimes, it’s about pay or job opportunities. Other times, it’s about not respecting someone’s ability because of their gender. This can make people feel unwelcome or less important.

Effects on People

When people are treated differently because of their gender, it can hurt their feelings and make them less confident. They might not want to speak up or try new things if they think they’ll be treated unfairly.

Fighting Discrimination

To stop gender discrimination, workplaces can make rules that treat everyone the same, no matter their gender. They can also teach their workers why it’s important to treat everyone fairly. This can help make the workplace better for everyone.

250 Words Essay on Gender Discrimination In Workplace

Gender discrimination in the workplace happens when people are treated unfairly because of their gender. This means that a person’s chance to get a job, their pay, or their chances to grow in a company might be hurt just because they are a man or a woman. It’s like having two people, one boy and one girl, both good at their work, but the girl is paid less or not given the same chances just because she is not a boy.

Types of Gender Discrimination

There are different ways this unfairness shows up at work. Sometimes, a woman might not get a job because the company thinks she will not fit in with all the men working there. Other times, a man might not get a job that is usually done by women because people think it is not for men. It can also happen when a woman is not promoted to a higher position even though she deserves it, just because she is a woman.

When people face gender discrimination, they can feel sad, angry, or even scared to speak up. They might worry that if they tell someone, they could lose their job. This can make the workplace a hard place to be and can make people not want to go to work.

Fighting Gender Discrimination

It is important to make sure everyone is treated fairly at work. This means that companies should have rules that do not allow gender discrimination. If someone is being treated unfairly, they should be able to tell someone at work who will help them. Schools can also teach kids about why it is wrong to treat people differently because of their gender, so when they grow up, they will make the workplace better for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Gender Discrimination In Workplace

Gender discrimination in the workplace means treating someone unfairly because of their gender. This can happen to anyone, but it often affects women and girls more. People might not get a job, a promotion, or even be paid less than others just because they are male or female.

There are many ways gender discrimination can show up at work. Sometimes, it’s very clear, like when a woman is told she can’t have a certain job because it’s “for men.” Other times, it’s not so obvious, like when a female worker is always given the less important tasks even though she’s just as good as her male coworkers.

A big issue is the pay gap. This means that women often earn less money than men for doing the same job. Imagine two people, a boy and a girl, working at the same place and doing the same work, but the boy is given more money. That’s not fair, right? But it happens a lot.

Opportunities for Advancement

Another problem is that women might not get the same chances to move up in their jobs as men do. Sometimes, people think that men are better leaders or that women should not be in charge. This stops many talented women from getting to higher positions that they deserve.

How It Affects Everyone

Gender discrimination doesn’t just hurt the person being treated unfairly; it’s bad for everyone. When people are not given equal chances, it means that the best person might not get the job or promotion. This can make businesses and companies less successful because they are not using all the skills and ideas they could be.

What Can Be Done?

Laws have been made to stop gender discrimination, but it still happens. Schools and parents can teach kids about equality so that they grow up knowing it’s wrong to treat people differently because of their gender. Companies can also make sure they treat all their workers the same and give everyone fair pay and chances to grow.

In conclusion, gender discrimination in the workplace is a problem that affects many people. It’s not fair to judge someone’s ability to work based on whether they are a boy or a girl. Everyone should have the same opportunities to get jobs, earn money, and be in charge. By working together, we can make sure that the workplace is fair for everyone, no matter their gender.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Gender Discrimination In Schools
• Essay on Gender Differences
• Essay on Gender And Society

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Call to +1 844 889-9952

Gender Discrimination in the Workplace

Introduction.

Gender discrimination happens the moment members of the opposite sex are treated unevenly. In a company, gender discrimination entails treating workers unequally in their employment just because one is a male or female (Smith, Oades, and McCarthy 51). Gender discrimination in the workplace arises when employers or managers treat an employee unfavorably based on their sex, be it in the process of applying for employment or provision of such requirements as promotions, leaves, and salary increments, to mention a few.

Gender discrimination happens illegitimately, as there are many existing laws that forbid and seek to eradicate discriminatory approaches. Even though females have made it apparent that they have the capacity to operate with similar or greater proficiencies and success in any task when judged against their male counterparts, the problem of gender discrimination still restrains the progress of many.

Though gender discrimination is mainly a problem that affects females, it may, at times, be carried out against male employees. How can a company address the issues of gender discrimination in the workplace? People might suffer gender discrimination through such practices as sexual harassment, being disdained unfairly in employment, dismissed, or mistreated by a supervisor, manager, employer, or a higher-ranking employee. Much needs to be done to eliminate gender discrimination in the place of work, which has persisted in being a major problem in the contemporary world, irrespective of the enactment of many laws that seek to combat the vice.

Discussion on Management Dilemma Question

Why are the issues of gender discrimination increasingly being reported in the company.

Several concerns result in the continued existence of gender discrimination. Though much progress has been realized, female employees continue to earn way less than their male counterparts in typical jobs or get promoted severally with women who have equal qualifications being denied promotion. Although many women are taking up executive positions in organizations, even some professional, vocal, and skilled, female leaders usually struggle with the negative perception that men, and other women, hold toward them.

On the contrary, similar assertive attributes are perceived as strengths in the case of male leaders (Newman 1). Stereotyping males as the breadwinners and females as home managers lead to gender discrimination. This makes some employers feel that they do not have to pay female employees as much as the male ones to make them take a task or promotion.

Management Question

How can the company realize gender equality in its workforce.

The management ought to have a comprehensive understanding of the existing laws to eradicate discrimination in the place of work, for instance, with respect to ensuring equal pay and preventing harassment, victimization, and unfairness anchored in sex. In this regard, they will be better placed to administer the laws. The management should set strict measures against gender discrimination. Moreover, managers should make it easy for workers to report incidences of discrimination (Newman 1).

Research Question

Should the company offer employment, pay, and promotion founded on ability and not gender.

It is a widespread perception that female employees are better placed in junior roles, while male workers will do exceedingly well if offered high pay and executive positions (Patterson and Walcutt 87). Nonetheless, such forms of stereotypes create the basis of gender discrimination in the place of work, and measures have to be implemented to prevent such actions from occurring. Offering employment opportunities, assigning positions, giving salaries, and issuing promotions have to be provided based on people’s capabilities, and attributes, irrespective of their being men or women and the preferences of customers or fellow workers should not be a strong and protected rationale behind the unequal treatment of employees anchored in their gender.

Discussion of Investigative Questions

Will the company reduce gender discrimination.

The company should do everything possible to reduce gender discrimination as a means of rising above its negative effects. One of the negative impacts of gender discrimination is lost productivity. The moment an employee suffers gender discrimination, whether a male or a female, desolation, and loss of motivation are the issues that are likely to crop up (Patterson and Walcutt 87). Lack of morale and a poor sense of worth will make it difficult for the affected employees to give their best to the tasks assigned to them. On this note, the company will gradually begin encountering losses.

Some employees in the company may have a feeling that it is bad for females to take leadership positions when some men have lower ranks. In this regard, some of the female employees who deserve promotion may be denied so that they remain at junior positions. Such acts of discrimination could kill the motivation of the female workers and make them not achieve their best for believing that their efforts will be ignored and cannot be rewarded through such practices as earning them promotions. Moreover, such gender discrimination might negatively influence the victims both professionally and individually.

Gender discrimination in the workplace may result in destruction. Victims of such acts of discrimination might encounter a sentiment of loss of self due to the harbored bitterness and dislike, and they may end up reacting unsuitably to draw the attention of the management through the destruction of the company’s assets, particularly if they are short-tempered. Therefore, the company should reduce gender discrimination and strive to create gender equality.

To attain gender equality, the company needs to equal salaries for both male and female workers and eliminate hindrances to the effective contribution of employees. The management should also learn to address the interests of both male and female employees in a fair and equal manner (Patterson and Walcutt 87). Gender equality in the workplace is the most appropriate and reasonable thing for the company to strive to achieve.

Will it make employees more competitive in the market?

A company can reduce gender discrimination by training employees on how they are supposed to treat each other and allowing them to access and benefit from opportunities, resources, and awards irrespective of their gender. Training reduces gender discrimination in a company, is considerably significant to the bottom line of the organization, and makes both male and female workers competitive in the market (Delfgaauw et al. 308).

Based on the interviews conducted in this field, I discovered that if male and female employees fail to realize equal opportunities in the labor market, the excellence of the workforce will be lower than in a case where gender discrimination has been eliminated (Delfgaauw et al. 308).

A company can make workers competitive in the market through training, which consequently results in salary increase. However, because the facilitation of the competitiveness of employees and reduction of gender discrimination leads to improved performance, companies are compelled to train workers and offer a favorable working environment to enhance job satisfaction. A positive environment with admirable working conditions and human interrelations is vital to retaining employees’ loyalty to a given company as it prevents them from leaving.

Will it reduce turnover?

The replacement of workers within a company may raise their annual wage by even more than 25% (Delfgaauw et al. 308). If both male and female employees are given equal opportunities, they have a high likelihood of remaining in the company for perceiving the conditions to be fair. On this note, the rate of turnover for a company that has ensured gender equality in the workplace is decreased hence lowering the cost of recruitment.

Members of the gender that face discrimination will keep leaving hence increasing the rate of turnover. Gender equality in the workplace generates flexible working agreements that enhance the satisfaction of the requirements of employees and offer favorable conditions that result in retention of workers. A company that triumphs over gender discrimination will promote retention of workers and decrease expenses by saving funds that could otherwise have been spent in adverts, termination payments, organizing interviews, and onboarding outlays for new workers, in addition to the time that could have been taken in interviewing the candidates to mention a few.

Will it improve employee satisfaction?

The commitment of a company to gender equality results in job satisfaction and motivation, particularly for female employees (Delfgaauw et al. 308). On the same note, most male employees will as well enjoy reduced gender discrimination as long as their salaries or working conditions are not affected negatively. Improvement of job satisfaction will play a key role in generating a more competitive work setting that may improve the productivity of the workers. Moreover, apart from boosting the productivity of workers, enhanced job satisfaction is found to be influential in ensuring facilitated employee retention.

Evaluation of Research

A company should eliminate gender discrimination in the workplace by initiating training programs that enhance equality and diversity (Basford, Offermann, and Behrend 345). For instance, an organization could address gender discrimination by improving gender equality through programs that seek to boost the representation of female and minority employees and closely monitoring the manner in which hiring is conducted.

Gender equality training programs act as a crucial stride in reducing discrimination and decreasing the rate of turnover. Training programs raise awareness, which assists the workers to reflect on the best way of redesigning practices with the purpose countering discrimination more successfully. Nonetheless, studies establish that training programs alone may not be adequate to eliminate gender discrimination that taints fair operations in a company. Nonetheless, training programs are vital as they create awareness and elicit reflection of more successful means of changing practices and organizational endeavors that result in gender discrimination.

It has been found that the things that get assessed in a company are easy to address and when employees receive gender incentives, they embark on approaches that reduce discrimination (Basford, Offermann, and Behrend 345). In this regard, a major aspect of reducing gender discrimination is through the assessment of possible pointers, evaluating the dedication of the management in realizing gender equality, and provision of gender incentives based on performance.

Gender incentives decrease discrimination in the workplace and facilitate job satisfaction. A strong incentive is in line with the set strategic practices, which are based on organizational gender equality plan. This approach seeks to make the female employees competitive because of the public approval of their excellence and the progression undertaken by the company to reduce gender discrimination.

A company could embark on anti-discrimination policies to define the anticipations and values while laying down complaint processes that will establish the best means of handling possible violations. Most companies choose to prepare a single document that details the anti-discrimination policies (Basford, Offermann, and Behrend 345). The policies that bar discriminative practices based on gender ought to encompass a progression of resolving such problems when they occur.

Workers ought to be guided by the personnel who will follow up on their concerns effectively. When discriminatory concerns are forwarded, the personnel in-charge ought to commence a thorough investigation, identify possible witnesses, and recommend the best action. In cases of egregious instances of gender discrimination, the best action could be the suspension or dismissal of the worker that carried out the misconduct.

Enhancing transparency could also reduce gender discrimination (Basford, Offermann, and Behrend 345). This should entail improved transparency in what the management is doing with respect to recruitment, remuneration, and promotion. Making the salary range of the workers public and monitoring what the progress realized in terms of reducing gender discrimination will make both the employees and the executive fair in their decision-making. Making oneself accountable to other people for the decisions made assists in ensuring objective choices.

Recommendations to Management

• Create training programs for both the staff and workers regarding prevention of gender discrimination: Since employees are at times not conscious of their biases, they may not realize when they are swaying the outcomes negatively. In this regard, educating and making workers aware of what is required of them is vital to reducing gender discrimination. When employees know the way stereotypes operate, they have a tendency of examining their decisions carefully (Okechukwu et al. 580). This has been established to break the inclination of using stereotypes as a crosscut. Companies should also sufficiently train gender discrimination prevention staff. Such personnel ought to be educated in both the evident and indirect discrimination that occurs in the workplace. They should be taught on the means of recognizing the incidences of gender discrimination amid the employees, the best way of handling the occurrences, and prevention strategies.
• Provide gender incentives: The management should seek a manner of offering positive motivational influence, particularly to the gender more vulnerable to discrimination. This will make the management proactive in the endeavors of discrediting stereotypes. For instance, any time when managers have the opportunity of introducing the employees, particularly female, they should affirm their proficiency or praise them for being successful. These approaches will assist in rising above the notions that stereotypes usually generate, particularly in raising uncertainties regarding the proficiency of female employees (Basford, Offermann, and Behrend 345).
• Create policies that promote gender equality: For the organizations that value diversity in their labor force, it is established that they ensure an increase in productivity and the bottom line, and a reduction in gender bias, absenteeism, court cases, and turnover. Mutual respect should be created by companies creating policies that enable it to hire individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, cultures, ages, and sex anchored in their competence, and treat them evenly. In such instances, the diversity backgrounds of the workers coupled with their skills enable them to offer more resourceful initiatives, which hold the focus of customers and generate their loyalty. Furthermore, an organization that eradicates gender discrimination finds it easy to draw a wide pool of talents and, hence, attain better-skilled applicants (Okechukwu et al. 580).
• Enhance transparency: Lack of transparency creates the likelihood of gender discrimination, which may make skilled employees leave, decrease the motivation of workers, or lead to the buckling of the bottom line. A company ought to facilitate transparency by ensuring that its practices of recruitment, remuneration, and promotion are done in an open and fair manner, and offering clarification to anyone that may find it necessary. Enhancing transparency reduces gender discrimination in the workplace by making every worker feel treasured and well-incorporated into the team (Okechukwu et al. 580).

In a company, gender discrimination involves treating workers unevenly based on one’s sex. Even if gender discrimination is mostly a challenge that affects females, it may in some instances be carried out against male workers. A lot requires being done to eradicate gender discrimination in a company, which acts as a major problem in the contemporary world notwithstanding the endorsement of many laws that seek to fight the vice.

Providing employment opportunities, allocating positions, giving remunerations, and issuing promotions have to be done based on people’s competencies and attributes, regardless of their being men or women. Some of the recommendations to the management with respect to the eradication of gender discrimination entail educating workers regarding how stereotypes function, revealing the professionalism of female leaders, and providing training.

Works Cited

Basford, Tessa, Lynn Offermann, and Tara Behrend. “Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 38.3 (2014): 340-349. Print.

Delfgaauw, Josse, Robert Dur, Joeri Sol, and Willem Verbeke. “Tournament incentives in the field: Gender differences in the workplace.” Journal of Labor Economics 31.2 (2013): 305-326. Print.

Newman, Constance. “Time to address gender discrimination and inequality in the health workforce.” Human Resources for Health 12.1 (2014): 1. Print.

Okechukwu, Cassandra, Kerry Souza, Kelly Davis, and Arnold Butch de Castro. “Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 57.5 (2014): 573-586. Print.

Patterson, Louise, and Brandon Walcutt. “Korean workplace gender discrimination research analysis: A review of the literature from 1990 to 2010.” Asia Pacific Business Review 19.1 (2013): 85-101. Print.

Smith, Patrick, Lindsay Oades, and Grace McCarthy. “The Australian corporate closet, why it’s still so full: A review of incidence rates for sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination in the workplace.” Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review 9.1 (2013): 51. Print.

Cite this paper

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

BusinessEssay. (2021, January 7). Gender Discrimination in the Workplace. https://business-essay.com/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/

"Gender Discrimination in the Workplace." BusinessEssay , 7 Jan. 2021, business-essay.com/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

BusinessEssay . (2021) 'Gender Discrimination in the Workplace'. 7 January.

BusinessEssay . 2021. "Gender Discrimination in the Workplace." January 7, 2021. https://business-essay.com/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

1. BusinessEssay . "Gender Discrimination in the Workplace." January 7, 2021. https://business-essay.com/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

Bibliography

BusinessEssay . "Gender Discrimination in the Workplace." January 7, 2021. https://business-essay.com/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

• Motivation and Organizational Culture
• Disneyland Company’s Human Resources
• Employees’ Satisfaction and Ways of Improvement
• Human Resource Training Process and Strategy
• Strategic Human Resource Management and Its Role
• Human Resource Management During Company’s Change
• Customer Service Training and Its Importance
• Employee Motivation in California Organizations
• Human Resource Dynamics in Organizations
• Gamification and Cross-Cultural Communication in Dubai

69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best gender discrimination topic ideas & essay examples, 🔎 interesting topics to write about gender discrimination, 🎓 good essay topics on gender discrimination.

• Gender-Based Discrimination in the Workplace In order to give a good account of the effects of gender-based discrimination against women, this paper examines the space of women in the automotive engineering industry.
• Controversy of Gender and Race Discrimination Gender and race issues should be well tackled, for instance, in some of the societies men are believed to be superior to women and hold all the important positions in the society. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Gender Discrimination in History and Nowadays In literature, especially in the works of Greek philosophers, there is a striking discrepancy in the perceptions of women’s place and homosexuality. Women were regarded as the devil’s seed, and the criteria to classify a […]
• Gender Discrimination in Public Administration The subject of the dispute and the statement of claim was the vacancy of a traffic controller, which was initially offered to Johnson, but then, as part of the program, the place was given to […]
• Discussion of Gender Discrimination in Modern Society In the professional field, women are constantly in discriminatory positions of jeopardy due to their gender. However, women still need to compete in the work environment.
• Gender Roles, Expectations, and Discrimination Despite Isaac being the calmest boy in the school, he had a crush on Grace, a beautiful girl in the school who was from a wealthy family.
• Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Discrimination In this Ted Talk, Sandberg also raises a question regarding the changes that are needed to alter the current disbalance in the number of men and women that achieve professional excellence.
• Discrimination and Politics of Gender and Sexuality Furthermore, the heterosexual had equal rights in terms of marriage as it was legalized in 50 states and there was no longer hiding one’s identity.
• Manifestations of Gender Discrimination in Insurance In the past, insurance companies have engaged in gender discrimination in the classification, acceptance and rating of risks. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the concept of gender discrimination and insurance in the world.
• Gender and the Problem of Discrimination Generally, after the evaluation of the facts, it appears that the consumption of media forms socializes us to hold particular conceptions of gender and the other related concepts and issues, and can even confront gender […]
• Gender Discrimination in the Workplace and Better Management Skills All complexities and worries including gender discrimination and violence at the workplace are the domain of management for which skilled management is an asset par excellent.
• Racial and Gender Discrimination in the Workplace and Housing Job discrimination is that discrimination which arises at the places of work Factors that include the presence of a high population of the unemployed create room for the vice.
• Ethics of Gender Identity Discrimination at Work Besides, ethical theories such as virtue ethics facilitate an understanding of the ethical impasse of whether to terminate the contract of transgender employees or embrace their sexual identity in the workplace environment.
• Gender and Cultural Discrimination in Modern Society Gender and cultural discrimination prevail in society in general and at the workplace in particular and the worst affected remains the women and people of different cultures in the workforce to date.
• Employee Issues: Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Sexual harassment is not always sexual in nature for instance, in a case where a man assaults women based purely on the woman’s gender.
• The Problem of Gender-Based Employment Discrimination The idea of men being paid more than women was widely accepted in the past, as men were considered the primary wage earners and breadwinners for the family.
• The Problem of Gender Discrimination In so doing, it has determined that the number of women in the workforce has systematically and continually risen over the course of the past two decades while the number of men in the workforce […]
• Poverty, Stratification and Gender Discrimination The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of poverty on people and the perception of stratification and discrimination through the prism of functionalism and conflict theory.
• Institutions and Gender Discrimination Issues In addition, parents buy clothes and toys that reflect gender issues in society and this contributes to the development of gendered stereotypes.
• Gender Discrimination on Birth Stage There has been a controversial debate over the years on the decline of men due to the emphasis on women’s empowerment.
• Gender Discrimination in the United States Although the principle of equality is proclaimed as the democratic value in the USA, the gender differences are still accentuated with references to the woman’s role in the society and woman’s participation in the activities […]
• Workplace Gender Equality and Discrimination Laws Gender equality in the workplace is also important to achieve competitive benefits, as well as a complex and competitive worldwide economy.
• Gender Discrimination and Shared Responsibility Therefore, it is of great importance to address the mentioned challenge, and one of the solutions lays in the education of women.
• Gender Discrimination in Russian Workplaces In the Soviet era, women were seen as an important factor in the industrialization of the country and they were allocated education and work opportunity by Russia’s socialist government.
• Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Resolving Glass Ceiling Issue The enactment of this proposed policy will not only address the issue of women discrimination in organisations, but also in the top management positions. The implementation of this proposed government policy will require all the […]
• Gender Discrimination in the Workplace Essay This essay will document gender bias and gender discrimination in the context of social and physical and the social confines of the work place that is experienced at work in the context of United States […]
• Problem of the Gender Discrimination in the Workplace This requires the employer to consider some of the things such as the number of women and men that applied for the available positions.
• Age and Gender: Discrimination During the Hiring Process When an employer sets forth to hire employees, there are a number of factors that have to be put into consideration by the concerned employer in order to ensure that those that are recruited have […]
• Gender Discrimination at the Workplace: A Case of Sexual Harassment In the current case and issues surrounding Herman Cain the Republican presidential candidate, it is apparent that cases of sexual harassment have taken place based on the above definition.
• Gender Discrimination and Intergenerational Transmission of Preferences
• Age and Gender Discrimination in the News Industry
• Analysis of the Phenomenon of Racial and Gender Discrimination
• Avoiding Sexual Orientation and Gender Discrimination in the Workplace
• Overview of Business Ethics and Gender Discrimination
• The Problem of Career and Gender Discrimination in Bahrain
• Caregivers, Firm Policies, and Gender Discrimination Claims
• Collaboration, Alphabetical Order, and Gender Discrimination: Evidence From the Lab
• Cultural Defense for Ethnic Accommodation or Cultural Excuse for Gender Discrimination
• Effective Public Policy Which Reduces Gender Discrimination in the Agricultural Labour Market
• The Link Between Equal Opportunity and Gender Discrimination
• Equal Protection and Gender Discrimination in Military Training
• Ethnic and Gender Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market
• Exploring Gender Discrimination Across Countries and Cultures
• Family Labor Market Decisions and Statistical Gender Discrimination
• Family Matters: Endogenous Gender Discrimination in Economic Development
• The Question of Gender Discrimination Against Asian Americans
• Gender Discrimination and Efficiency in Marriage: The Bargaining Family Under Scrutiny
• Measuring and Testing for Gender Discrimination in Physician Pay: English Family Doctors
• Gender Discrimination and Emigration: Push Factor Versus Screening Process Hypothesis
• Output and Gender Discrimination in Pay: Evidence From Manufacturing Industry
• Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence From the Italian Academy
• Political Instability, Gender Discrimination, and Population Growth in Developing Countries
• Gender Discrimination and Firm Profit Efficiency: Evidence From Brazil
• Prejudice and Gender Discrimination Against Women and Minorities
• Gender Discrimination and Gender Bias in the Modern Society
• Gender Discrimination and Growth: Theory and Evidence From India
• Rent Sharing and Gender Discrimination in Collegiate Athletics
• Social Norms and Gender Discrimination in the Labor Market: An Agent-Based Exercise
• Gender Discrimination and Prejudice Evident in Promotional Content
• Subjective Performance Evaluation and Gender Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination and Self-Employment Dynamics in Europe
• The Analogies Between Racial and Gender Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination and Social Identity: Evidence From Urban Pakistan
• The Glass Ceiling and How Gender Discrimination Affects Women
• Gender Discrimination During the Early Nineteenth Century
• Life and Contributions of Nafis Sadik to the Fight Against Gender Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination Set Straight: Women’s Right to Express the Option of Voting
• The Women During the Persian Rule and the Gender Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination Still Exists in Today’s Era
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-discrimination-essay-topics/

"69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-discrimination-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-discrimination-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-discrimination-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "69 Gender Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-discrimination-essay-topics/.

• Discrimination Essay Titles
• Bisexual Essay Titles
• Employment Law Paper Topics
• Feminism Questions
• Gender Inequality Research Topics
• Segregation Research Topics
• Gender Roles Paper Topics
• Stereotype Topics
• Gender Stereotypes Essay Titles
• Sexism Essay Ideas
• Women’s Role Essay Topics
• Transgender Paper Topics
• Bullying Research Topics
• Gender Issues Questions
• Family Relationships Research Ideas

Gender Discrimination Essay

500 words gender discrimination essay.

Gender discrimination is when there are unfair rights between male and female. It differs because of their gender roles which ultimately leads to unequal treatment in life. Gender discrimination has been around for many centuries. However, as we are evolving, it is time to do away with such notions of gender roles. Thus, gender discrimination essay will take us through it in detail.

Causes of Gender Discrimination

There are many causes of gender discrimination. The first one has to be illiteracy . When people do not educate themselves, they continue to live in the old times. Thus, they follow the old-age sexist traditions and norms.

Education can bring about a change in this mindset because educated people will less likely partake in gender discrimination. Further, poverty is also another reason which is interlinked in a way.

It is the root cause in many places because the economic dependence remains on the male counterparts mostly. Thus, women suffer a lot from it because of the same reason. They never get out of this and stay financially dependent on men.

Furthermore, the patriarchal setup in our society plays a big role. In this setup, the male dominates almost every aspect of life. Thus, they consider themselves to be superior to others.

This way, a lot of violence and injustice is meted out against females. Thus, when there is a gender considering themselves to be superior, it becomes difficult for everyone to avail equal opportunities.

Impact of Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination has a deep impact on society as a whole. It does not just impact a specific section of the society but every part of it. First of all, it impacts children as they fall prey to gender stereotypes from a young age.

Further, it impacts young people because it impacts their behaviour, study choices, ambitions, attitudes and more. Thus, many girls do not participate in many sports and women experience physical violence more than men.

Next up, we have gender discrimination affecting adults because there is a gender pay gap between the working class. Men earn more for doing the same work as women. In addition, older women have more risk of becoming homeless than men.

It also impacts the aboriginal women because they have it a lot worse. It is more likely to happen that they can die from family violence, 11 times more than men. Even for men, it is not beneficial as it sets difficult standards for men to follow.

It draws a line on men being emotional. Thus, they can never showcase their emotions truly without being judged. Similarly, men do not parental leave in many places. Ultimately, all this results in more suicide in men. Thus, it impacts everyone.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of Gender Discrimination Essay

Gender discrimination must be checked at every stage so that no person should be denied a chance to learn and grow. Thus, everyone, no matter male or female, must get a start in life in terms of educations and other opportunities. We must come together as a society to do this.

FAQ on Gender Discrimination Essay

Question 1: Who is affected by gender inequality?

Answer 1: Gender inequality affects everyone, which includes men as well. Stereotypes about how women and men, girls and boys should be, start from their childhood and follow us to adulthood. Thus, it does not affect just one but all.

Question 2: Give an example of gender discrimination.

Answer 2: There are many examples of gender discrimination. For instance, restriction on clothing. If a man wears shorts, no one will bat an eye. However, if a woman wears shorts, she will be seen in a bad light and be called names. Similar is the case for housework.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gender Equality — Gender Inequality: Gender Discrimination In Workplace

The Issue of Gender Equality in Workplace

• Categories: Gender Discrimination Gender Inequality Workplace

About this sample

Words: 859 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 859 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

• Smith, J. (2021). Gender Equality in the Workplace: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 201-215.
• Johnson, L., & Davis, M. (2022). Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions. Gender Studies Review, 32(1), 45-62.
• Thompson, C. L., & Anderson, R. (2023). Workplace Culture and Gender Equality: Creating an Inclusive Environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(2), 345-360.
• Davis, A., & Roberts, M. (2021). Addressing Wage Inequality: Strategies for Achieving Gender Pay Equity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(4), 521-536.
• Gonzalez, L. S., & Wilson, B. (2022). Combating Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Policies and Interventions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 233-248.
• Baker, S., & Turner, R. (2023). Promoting Gender Equality in Business: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(2), 189-204.
• Smith, E., & Davis, M. A. (2021). The Impact of Gender Inequality on Organizational Performance: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28(2), 233-248.
• Anderson, R., & Roberts, M. (2022). The Role of Leadership in Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace. Journal of Leadership Studies, 42(2), 233-248.
• Gonzalez, L. S., & Johnson, S. (2023). Breaking Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace: Strategies for Promoting Inclusion. Journal of Gender Studies, 45(4), 521-536.
• Wilson, B., & Thompson, C. L. (2021). The Economic Benefits of Gender Equality in the Workplace. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(2), 233-248.

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 Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Life

+ 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

4 pages / 1612 words

3 pages / 1218 words

2 pages / 958 words

1 pages / 1228 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 Equality

The presence of transgender athletes in professional sports has become a controversial topic in recent decades due to the global recognition of LGBTQ+ rights. The debate surrounding this issue centers on transgender rights, the [...]

Coney, Sandra E. (2016). The Societal Plague of Gender Inequity. Journal of Social Issues, 52(2), 157-179.Daniel, Beatriz M., & Koss, Angelica (2016). Promoting Social Justice through English Language Teaching. English Teaching: [...]

Throughout history, the role of women in society has transformed significantly. Today, women play multifaceted roles in various aspects of life, challenging traditional stereotypes and contributing substantially to social, [...]

Woodward, K. (2012). “The Virtual Self: Gender, Subjectivity, and the Un/Real.” In Digital Identity and Everyday Activism: Sharing Private Stories with Networked Publics, eds. M. Davis and J. L. James, 11-28. New York: Palgrave [...]

Marie Shear stated, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” There are no truer words when it comes to the story portrayed in the short drama, Trifles, written by Susan Glaspell. This play emphasizes the gender [...]

The portrayal of groups of people in the media has consistently changed with the times. ‘Still I Rise’ and ‘The Necklace’ are both forms of writing that were written during contrasting periods and by two contrasting people. ‘The [...]

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

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Nicholas Kristof

The Case for Saying ‘I Do’

By Nicholas Kristof

Opinion Columnist

With little notice, the United States may be crossing a historic milestone in family structure, one that may shape our health, wealth and happiness.

Historically, most American adults were married — more than two-thirds as recently as 1970. But the married share has crept downward , and today only about half of adults are married. Depending on the data source, we may already have entered an epoch in which a majority are not married.

“Our civilization is in the midst of an epochal shift, a shift away from marriage,” Brad Wilcox, a sociologist who directs the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, writes in his new book, “ Get Married .” “In place of marriage, many Americans are remaining single or simply living together without wedding rings. And to be clear, it’s more of the former than the latter.”

Wilcox believes that perhaps a third of today’s young Americans will never marry. As a long-married romantic myself, I find that troubling, but it’s not just soggy sentimentality. Survey data indicates that married couples on average report more happiness, build more wealth, live longer and raise more successful children than single parents or cohabiting couples, though there are plenty of exceptions.

“Fixing what ails America starts with renewing marriage and family life, especially in poor and working-class communities where the fabric of family life is weakest,” Wilcox argues.

He’s up against a counter view that one should dodge family responsibilities, relish freedom and play hard. Many boys and men flock to the online rantings of Andrew Tate , the misogynistic influencer facing human trafficking charges, who has argued, “There is zero advantage to marriage in the Western world for a man.”

Some women have likewise celebrated freeing themselves from an institution that often shackled them to cooking, laundry and second-class status at a cost to their careers. As women have enjoyed more economic opportunities, they’re less often forced to marry some oaf who gets violent after a few drinks — and, anyway, what self-respecting woman with independent means would want to marry, say, a fan of Andrew Tate?

Yet even as marriage has receded, the evidence has grown that while it isn’t for everyone, in many cases it can improve our lives more than we may appreciate.

“Marriage predicts happiness better than education, work and money,” Wilcox writes. For example, survey data indicates that getting a college degree increases the odds of describing oneself as “very happy” by 64 percent. Earning a solid income lifts the odds by 88 percent. Being “very satisfied” with one’s job raises them by 145 percent. And marriage increases the odds of being very happy by 151 percent — while a “very happy” marriage boosts the odds by 545 percent.

I’ve long been interested in family structure for two reasons. First, I believe the left made a historic mistake by demonizing the Moynihan Report, which 59 years ago this month warned about the consequences of family breakdown. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was prescient, for we now know that households headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as those with married couples.

Second, loneliness and social isolation are growing problems. One poignant example: Perhaps 100,000 or more dead bodies in America go unclaimed each year, often because there are no loved ones to say farewell. It’s a topic explored in another recent book, “The Unclaimed,” by sociologists Pamela Prickett and Stefan Timmermans.

Marriage doesn’t solve loneliness and social isolation, but it helps. And there is good news on the family front: The divorce rate has dropped to a 50-year low , and the share of children raised in an intact family with married parents has increased slightly in recent years. Today about 51 percent of American kids reach adulthood with the same two parents they started out with.

But it’s also true that the marriage rate has collapsed, particularly for working-class Americans. Of those without a high school diploma, more than two-thirds are unmarried.

Wilcox writes that “the American heart is closing,” but I wouldn’t put it that way. I think many Americans want to marry but don’t feel sufficiently financially stable, or they can’t find the right person.

I’m staggered by the interest in virtual boyfriends and virtual girlfriends. One virtual boyfriend app offers an assortment of possibilities such as “polite and intelligent Edward” or “romantic and cute Daniel.”

“Don’t be shy, he’ll definitely like you,” the app advises. “He knows how to cheer you up, so you won’t feel sad or lonely.”

Just reading that makes me achingly sad. Virtual mates feel like an elegy for civilization.

One reason for the decline in marriage in working-class communities may be a lack of economic opportunity, particularly for men, and another may be culture and changing norms. That’s worth pondering. In polls, majorities of college-educated liberals seem diffident about marriage, unwilling to criticize infidelity and disagreeing with the idea that children do better with two married parents. Perhaps this liberal lack of enthusiasm for marriage also accounts for the marriage penalties built into benefit programs like Medicaid, in turn disincentivizing marriage for low-income Americans.

Wilcox scolds elites for clinging to traditional values themselves — in the sense that they get married and have kids for the most part — even as they are reluctant to endorse marriage for fear of seeming judgmental or intolerant. Elites “talk left but walk right,” he says.

We are social animals, Aristotle noted more than two millenniums ago, and it’s still true. Spouses can be exasperating (as my wife can attest), but they also can cuddle, fill us with love and connect us to a purpose beyond ourselves. They are infinitely better, for us and for society, than virtual lovers on an app, and that seems worth celebrating openly.

Update: I have the final figures for my 2023 holiday giving guide , so I owe readers a follow-up and a “thank you.” More than 5,400 readers contributed a total of $7.2 million to the three nonprofits I recommended , and here’s what the donations will mean in practical terms: 12,150 girls in rural Africa will be supported for a year of high school through Camfed ; 1,645 young people in the United States will be supported for a year of instruction and mentoring to succeed in college or technical school through OneGoal ; and 4,218 low-income Americans will get free training in information technology through Per Scholas so that they can start better-paying careers in the tech world. All three organizations do excellent work. In addition, 671 readers volunteered to help refugees settle in the United States through my recommended volunteer opportunity, Welcome.US . Thanks so much to all who donated and volunteered: People are benefiting here and abroad from your generosity.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Nicholas Kristof became a columnist for The Times Opinion desk in 2001. He has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for his coverage of China and of the genocide in Darfur. @ NickKristof