gender inequality in the workplace speech

Gender Inequality in the Workplace

Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid

Speech Details

patriarchal society, inequality, values, stereotype, maternity leave, paternity leave, ambition, caring professions, CEO

Although the speaker mentions in the introduction that this is a consecutive speech, it was decided by the DG Interpretation evaluators to classify it as a begginer simultaneous one, with a remark that it is also suitable as a long consecutive intermediate exercise.

mandatory field

How to get workplace gender equity now (with Sara Sanford) (Transcript)

How to Be a Better Human How to get workplace gender equity now (with Sara Sanford) (Transcript) October 10, 2022

Listen along

[00:00:00] Chris Duffy: You're listening to How to Be a Better Human. I'm your host, Chris Duffy. Today on the podcast, we’ve got equity expert Sara Sanford. Sara is the author of Inclusion, Inc.: How to Design Intersectional Equity into the Workplace. Sara created a playbook and a set of standards that can help organizations and people bypass their biases and become more inclusive.

That work is informed by her own experiences as well as loads of research. And one of the things that I find so exciting about Sara is that she's laser-focused on changing how workplaces operate, not just how people think. So, you know, when I talk about this show, when I talk about this podcast, I always try and tell people that our goal is to take brilliant people who share these big ideas and then say, “Okay, great. You are so smart and you are so interesting. But what would a regular person like me actually do, right?” Like, how does a regular person put these ideas into place in our everyday lives? And I think Sara is amazing at that. So today, our episode is all about: how do you go beyond good intentions to actually making change?

Here's a clip from Sara's talk at TEDx Seattle.

[00:01:12] Sara Sanford: Many businesses think they're addressing the problem because they provide training. 8 billion dollars worth of training a year, according to studies from the Harvard Business Review. These same studies also conclude that these trainings don't work and often backfire.

The other solution has been to ask women to change their own behavior, to lean in, to sit at the table. Negotiate as often as men. Oh, and get more training. Women currently earn the majority of college degrees, outperform their peers in key leadership skills, and are running businesses that outperform the competition. It doesn't look like education or skills or business acumen are the problem. We're already empowered: enough to make an impact on the businesses that are ready. These approaches failed to address the key systemic problem, unconscious bias.

[00:02:16] Chris Duffy: We’re gonna take a quick break, but we will be back with much more from Sara Sanford.

[MUSIC BREAK]

[00:02:27] Chris Duffy: Okay, we are back. Today on the show, we're talking about gender equity and how to create a more inclusive workspace with Sara Sanford.

[00:02:33] Sara Sanford: Hi, I'm Sara Sanford. I'm the executive director and founder of GEN, which stands for “Gender Equity Now”. It is the first standardized certification for intersectional equity in the workplace.

[00:02:47] Chris Duffy: In your book— Inclusion, Inc. —you talk about how you were once at a panel where they asked the powerful CEOs of a bunch of companies like, “What are you actually doing to make your workplaces more equitable?” And everyone gave these kind-of good sounding but very vague answers about like, “It starts with caring.” And I think it's interesting. It seems like you had a personal journey from being like, “Great, I wanna work for people who talk like that”, to being like, “It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you do. And I want it to be verifiable, as opposed to like, we're inspiring and we're capturing hearts and minds.” As it… you were like, “Okay, well what are the numbers?”

[00:03:25] Sara Sanford: Absolutely. It's something that I wanted to see treated the same way that businesses treat operations. The same way that they treat accounting, that they treat any other business-critical function. You know, I get to spend my days researching this and seeing what the new data is around what is working and what isn't.

And a lot of decision-makers just didn't have access to those tools at that time. I think a lot of them feel overwhelmed. Information overwhelm is a real thing, or they're afraid of saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing, and they really don't know where to start. So we wanted to see them have a clear action plan that was evidence-backed. So it's looking at causes. So it's not just looking at end results and outcomes and saying, “Oh yes, we need more people of color in leadership. Oh yes, we need more women in leadership.” Okay, we know that. But a lot of times that bridge between the problem and that desired end result was not clear. No one knew what the path was from one to another.

[00:04:21] Chris Duffy: Let's just define some terms here so that we all know exactly what we're talking about. Um, what is a GEN certification?

[00:04:29] Sara Sanford: Yeah, so a GEN certification is a standardized assessment of employee experience and fairness of practices, and it is based on what we know has an impact for countering bias in the workplace rather than fostering it.

So it is in many ways just a checklist that will look at your organization and say, “Do you have the practices in place that are proven to counter the impact of bias?” And then once organizations go through this assessment, we help them find where they have gaps, and then optimize their processes and make sure that they're actually hearing from all of these diverse employees that they've recruited. So it really takes them beyond diversity, to meaningful inclusion.

[00:05:18] Chris Duffy: What first drove you to create GEN? What was the impetus for it?

[00:05:23] Sara Sanford: I started as kind of that nonprofit classic do-gooder kid, who worked on a lot of causes. Um, I was really focused actually on racial equity, and I think I just saw the limits of what can be done in the nonprofit sector from the outside, and so decided to make the switch into the private sector and worked for several finance companies, seeing that the demographic that they served and the demographic that they employed looks very different.

From the inside, I saw, okay, it's very white and male. There is still wealth in spaces that doesn't look like that. There are demographics that need to be served. And so I got to launch and run several programs focused on DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion.

[00:06:13] Sara Sanford: And really what I saw over and over again was that companies were practicing the same kind of trifecta of DEI Doom in which they would bring in underrepresented groups, they would ask them to lean in, and then they would conduct diversity trainings. And these approaches didn't work or really had their limits, but from what I saw, employers weren't willing to go beyond them. It felt like too much of a risk.

And so we were bringing underestimated, which is how I more commonly referred to underrepresented groups. We were bringing underestimated groups in-house and we had changed the window dressing, but we hadn't fixed the house. We hadn't really addressed any of the systemic problems. That would just mean that over time these employees would be faced with the same choice over and over again to assimilate or leave.

[00:07:03] Sara Sanford: And so I got frustrated with seeing this dynamic and ultimately realized that I was a part of the problem, that these programs were a part of the problem, that I was letting employers just check this box that said, “Look at us. We're trying, we're investing time and money”, but ultimately nothing was changing.

And so, you know, I. Asked out loud, is there a standardized certification from a third party that has said “Yes, these employers have taken the correct steps to accommodate employees of all backgrounds.” Something that was like an organic stamp on an apple that lets you know that they've been vetted because employees and candidates really had no way of knowing. It's been this kind of nebulous gray area for so long. But we do have the ability to put data behind the causes of the gaps and implement meaningful solutions.

[00:07:53] Chris Duffy: I know from reading your book and from hearing you talk that there are many different factors that are considered in a GEN certification, but I wonder, could you pick one that's emblematic of like, “This is the kind of thing that we're looking for?”

[00:08:08] Sara Sanford: Am I allowed to take a second?

[00:08:09] Chris Duffy: Of course, please. You could pick three if you want.

[00:08:13] Sara Sanford: Yeah, so what the certification is about is moving beyond mindsets to mechanics, so adjusting what we call cultural levers in the workplace. And so the simplest example of this, if you ask a woman to state her gender before she fills out a job application or takes a skills test, she will perform worse or represent herself worse than if you had not asked her that question first. So a simple fix for this is just to move that gender check box to the end of the job application so that applicants aren't thinking about it, so that internalized stereotyping isn't activated. And so the certification is really a series of those kinds of cultural levers and saying, “Have you adjusted these?”

What are the default settings in your organization and how can we change those? You know, and some of them may be more in-depth, like we may look at a job description and say, What kinds of words do you use? We found that in the tech industry, organizations that use the word hacker kind of in a tongue-in-cheek way, are far less likely to recruit female candidates than organizations that use the word coder.

So we'll go through and just find our points like that and look at what you can adjust or not adjust. So it's everything from how often do you conduct performance evaluations? When you do a pay gap audit, are you looking at total compensation, say, including commission and not just base salary?

[00:09:42] Chris Duffy: Well, I guess there, I have two questions. How did you learn about these levers and these tendencies within organizations? And then have you seen them at play in your own professional and personal life?

[00:09:53] Sara Sanford: Ooh. So we got a great partnership with the University of Washington, mainly working with their Evans School of Public Policy to conduct the research that was more employee data-driven.

So we did conduct a mass study of employees in a range of sectors, initially across the US. And then honestly, it's just been a lot of time spent on research, and it's a mix of academic survey review studies that you know, we've conducted on our own. And then, yeah, I would say some speaking to personal experience. The gaps that I've experienced that tend to be most pervasive for other underrepresented groups would fall into the bucket of just not being taken seriously.

[00:10:40] Sara Sanford: And I think that that becomes visible in a lot of ways in the workplace, you know? So for me, it would be having my idea stolen at a meeting that I couldn't get people to pay attention to for months until a man voiced it. It would be being the person who's asked to get the coffee when you're the only woman at the table. I know that happened to me several times.

I think being asked to complete duties that had nothing to do with my job because I was the woman in the office. So a lot of like, “Oh, well you look at this template I created to see if it looks pretty because that seems like something you would be good at.” I'm very bad at that. I'm not good at that at all. I'm not good at planning birthday parties for the office. You should not ask me to do these things. So I think for me, it was a lot of times not having my credentials or experience recognized and also just being expected to do a lot of emotional labor in the office.

[00:11:34] Chris Duffy: In your talk, you mentioned that opportunities for women increased over the last 50 years, but that progress has stalled in the last decade. I'm curious to talk to you about some of what you think the root causes of that are, but also what are the indicators that you use when you talk about progress?

[00:11:49] Sara Sanford: One of the better analogies I've heard is that we look at the physiology of an organization as opposed to the anatomy. We want to look under the hood and see these intermediary steps and see that they've changed.

So for example, I would think about mentorship. This is something that is a little overtalked, not talked about with quite enough nuance. And so one of the things that will look like progress would be women having equal access to senior mentors. When we think about progress, we want it to be data-smart and being data-smart means that we're looking at finer aspects of progress.

[00:12:29] Sara Sanford: So a lot of employers that we've worked with have said our employees have equal access to mentors in the organization. But if we look at the data, employees of color and women are far less likely to have had access to senior mentors, whereas their white or male counterparts have had access, and we see that this has a traceable impact on the projection of their careers and on their salaries.

So we see that when women or employees of color are paired with more senior mentors, they do accelerate faster in their career, and they are promoted faster. I think there are obvious markers of progress that you can look at from the outside and say, “Oh, okay. They have a lot of leaders of color.” But we wanna see progress around the finer points that make those changes work or not work. So do you have maternity leave, or do you have family leave? And do your leaders use it? And when employees are out on leave, are they actually still eligible for promotions? So to us, a business that has evolved enough to be considered inclusive has really paid attention to those finer change management aspects that will have a long-term impact on those underestimated groups.

[00:13:41] Chris Duffy: I know we've also been talking about it as just male and female, but I imagine that something like a GEN certification would be really helpful for trans and non-binary folks too, who are thinking about which workplaces are going to be accepting and also just like positive places to work.

[00:13:58] Sara Sanford: Yeah, and it's an area where we found employers are actually the most scared and the most reticent to have conversation, and now they are more scared to talk about their trans employees and their non-binary employees than they are race.

And so part of our certification process does help employers work through what are the steps you need to take to make trans employees feel included? For example, workplaces will talk about gender-neutral bathrooms. What does that look like? Or they have to look at their healthcare policies and see what that encompasses.

[00:14:32] Sara Sanford: Smaller tweaks, a lot of times, can be more effective. One of the best things that leaders who are cis male or cis female can do is model behaviors that will make the workplace more accommodating for trans employees. So email signatures are a huge one. I've seen a lot of workplaces say, “Okay, we've made templates available in which you can state your pronouns if you want to”, but it's not universal.

For employees that have been misgendered, it doesn't really get rid of the problem because when they've been misgendered, they have to go through the whole awkward, “Oh, should I tell this person they've misgendered me? How should I bring this up? Are they gonna be offended?” If I'm an employee who's frequently misgendered, and I'm the only one or one of two to put a pronoun in their signature, it's still like waving this giant flag that's saying, “Pay attention to this. Get distracted by this.” Whereas if leaders do this first and say, We would like this to be universal throughout the company, it normalizes it, and it means that someone who is trans or non-binary doesn't have to take as big a risk.

[00:15:48] Chris Duffy: Okay, we're gonna take a quick break, but we will be back with more from Sara in just a moment. Stay tuned.

[00:16:03] Chris Duffy: And we're back with equity expert Sara Sanford. Here's another clip from Sara's TEDx Talk.

[00:16:07] Sara Sanford (recording): Women in the workforce today are constantly told. “You can be anything you want, now. It’s up to you.” Women of color, for whom the wage gap is even larger, have heard it. The two-thirds of minimum wage workers who are women have heard it.

Workers who don't identify as male or female and hide their identity at work have heard it. If they can hear “You can be anything you want now. It’s up to you,” I believe it's time for our businesses to hear it, too. Eliminating workplace bias is a tall order, but we can't afford to let half our people go on being ignored.

[00:16:55] Chris Duffy: How do you deal with what I imagine might happen, which is that there's one category of businesses and leaders who care about this stuff, and so they do an okay job, and then they get better and better, and then there's another category of businesses and leaders who are skeptical or don't care about it at all?

How do you make it so that everywhere becomes more equitable and more just rather than just having this fork in the road between good and terrible organizations?

[00:17:22] Sara Sanford: One of the reasons we created the model behind the GEN certification is to neutralize those actors that may be skeptical, or may think it doesn't matter, or may be actively working against it.

So, the way that our model works is that it essentially makes unbiased action, the path of least resistance. I'll give you an example. If we think about interviews, one of the fascinating things that happens when it comes to asking questions in interviews, if they're not standardized, women get asked prevention-oriented questions, which are, you know, “How do you think you will keep us from losing customers? What is your risk management approach?” Questions that are about preventing loss.

[00:18:14] Sara Sanford: Men get asked growth-oriented questions. How do you plan to grow our customer base in the next few years? How do you plan to increase sales? What this does is put female candidates on the defensive. So to be GEN certified, one of the steps businesses often take is standardizing their interviewing processes. And what this means is asking the same questions in the same order to all of the candidates to prevent this kind of bias from setting in.

Even if you've come into the conversation as someone who really doesn't care about diversity, you've never learned about your biases, we've set up a system that's essentially provided a detour that said, “Okay, you don't have to think about being biased or not as much as you may have before.” So it's really about putting systems in place that even though if you have bad actors in an organization, counters the bias may come out of them by neutralizing it essentially. It also means that sometimes if a leadership team genuinely does not care about this at all, we're probably not gonna end up certifying them.

[00:19:27] Chris Duffy: It, it's interesting, I mean, one of the things that I think is so fascinating about that, and what I think is one of the many things that is very important about the work that you're doing is that it doesn't actually require us to fix the boss. It doesn't make it so, like, you can only have an equitable workplace if the boss becomes an enlightened being, right? There are ways that the boss can still have ingrained prejudices and biases, and it can still lead to a better outcome just by tweaking the way that things are done so that those impact it less.

[00:20:02] Sara Sanford: Yeah, you could implement every single Gen-approved process in the book and still hire a jerk. You know, you're still gonna have people in the workplace who may offend people or may harass people, but in an organization where Maria has been in this organization for five years, but her work has been recognized, and this place has inclusive meeting behaviors in place, so she's not interrupted as often, and her pay is equitable to that of her colleagues. And then John harasses her. Maria may go to HR, but she looks at that as John's problem.

We found that in organizations that do not have inclusive practices in place: Maria’s been passed over for promotions, she’s felt ignored, and then John harasses her? She's suing the company. If they've had these inclusive practices in place, there may be a bad actor in the workplace. 9 times out of 10, he's gonna be detoured, by the processes.

[00:21:03] Chris Duffy: One thing that I was really struck by talking about evaluations and feedback, that if feedback was formally given more infrequently, like once a year or twice a year, that bias came much more into play, that the managers would often then think back and try and give their general impressions of this person.

And those impressions were shaped by internal biases, but then, if feedback was given every week, it was really much more about the actual work because it wasn't as much like, “Here’s how I feel about you.”

[00:21:28] Sara Sanford: Exactly. Much more objective. We found that when evaluations take place just once a year or just twice a year, they really rely on our memories and our feelings, and that is just your amygdala lighting up, which is where your bias lives.

We've found that when employers give feedback more regularly in those short spurts that you talked about, the feedback also tends to be more actionable. So even if there is negative feedback that's given, it tends to be less vague and it tends to focus on a particular skill.

[00:22:03] Chris Duffy: One of the other things that I can see as being a real benefit of having kind of an objective list of behaviors and practices that affect gender-based performance is that it's not just that the organization can be evaluated by them, but that if you are someone who wants to improve yourself, right? Say you're a, a cis heterosexual man who's like, “I'm trying to figure out how I can be better.” There's this list of things that you might not even be aware of that are a big factor.

And I know just speaking from my own personal experience, I have really benefited from having some colleagues who, very generously, have been willing to point out in a productive way, behaviors that I've done that are not helpful or that are rooted in some of this misogyny or just practices since we all live in this.

But I think you have to learn about it in order to get better at it. And, for me, it was really helpful to have people be like, “Do you notice that our ideas aren't taken as seriously? Do you notice that you are sometimes speaking over us? That you don't do that to other guys?” And that I think is a way that you can like change and improve, too.

[00:23:07] Sara Sanford: Well, and I think it takes the feeling and the defensiveness out of it. Well, I would say that you are a rare bird in being receptive and welcome to hearing that, that…

[00:23:17] Chris Duffy: Oh, I don't know that I was necessarily as receptive at the moment. In retrospect, I'm like, “Thank you for doing that.” In the moment I was like, “Are you kidding me? I am an ally. I am an ally. I’m great.”

[00:23:27] Sara Sanford: And I've been there. I'm more likely to ask female colleagues personal questions or interrupt their work and chat about their weekend. And so I think also what these checklists do, they don't say like, “Stop behaving in this way”, and they're not too vague to really understand how to make a difference or to feel personal.

So one of the changes I talk about in the book and that we have in the certification, that's a cultural lever that a business can adjust, we talk about having a red, yellow, green availability system. That if you are one of these people who is still in an office, you know when there are cubicles and chairs around you, that just sit on the edge of your desk. Think of it almost like sliders. And if everyone has one, then it's normalized. This is also one of the important points for these cultural levers: make them universal. But that essentially is coded like red—“I am deep in focus. Please do not bother me. I am on a deadline”. Yellow, which is “If you have something work-related or important or urgent, sure. Interrupt me.” And green, which is, “I'm doing busy work. I'm bored. It's a Friday afternoon. Please come bug me.” And it's a nice way to avoid that interpersonal tension.

The interruption itself, it is all of the mental labor around, “Oh, should I tell them no? Oh, should I just go ahead and have the conversation to avoid conflict? I don't wanna be the angry woman in the office. I don't wanna be seen as unlikeable.” But it takes all of that guesswork out of it.

[00:24:54] Chris Duffy: I know that one of your big key phrases is changing mechanics rather than mindsets, and it does seem like a lot of, well-intended, but maybe ineffective, workplace trainings really do focus on changing mindsets, on winning people over, on trying to make them feel more empathy, which is not to, I, I say it in a tone where I feel like I'm being dismissive of that.

Not to be that's not important, but it is interesting to me that you're really focused on the mechanics instead. So what are some of the trainings that you feel are the most ineffective and that you wish that people would move away from?

[00:25:29] Sara Sanford: One-off trainings. I will say it is not that every single type of training is effective. The ones that we've seen have a positive impact are ones in which there's at least a set of four. One of the reasons trainings are difficult is that people don't make changes overnight. They have to sit there and process and go through those uncomfortable feelings we just talked about and maybe become okay with the fact that they've had some privilege, and then move on from that. That takes time.

And this is a problem that has existed for decades, so we're not gonna solve it in an afternoon. I know this sounds like an extreme stance, but I would rather see businesses do nothing than continue to conduct diversity trainings or unconscious bias trainings in the workplace. Um, one of the reasons I always laugh at the title “Unconscious Bias T rainings” is because you're acknowledging that bias is unconscious, and so even though you sat there and had a conscious conversation, one of the insidious aspects of unconscious biases is that learning about them does not make us any better at recognizing them.

[00:26:31] Sara Sanford: It makes us slightly better at recognizing it in our peers, but we found that this phenomenon is even more pronounced the more prejudiced you are. So those who come into trainings with the most prejudiced views are actually the most likely to leave thinking that they're even more meritocratic than they thought they were before going into the training.

And they benefit from this phenomenon called “moral licensing”. So it's the training equivalent of “I have a black friend”. You know, they can say, “No, there's no way what I've said or did was sexist or racist. I hold a different view and I know I'm not any of these terrible things because I've got my training card to show you.”

So a lot of times we've seen, like, the employee of color who has tried to speak up about gaps in the workplace and has been ignored or sidelined suddenly becomes Racism Google at trainings, right? That everyone turns to them and says, “Oh, was that your experience? What do you think?” And they're put in a really risky position in which they have to decide, do I speak the truth and make my coworkers uncomfortable and possibly suffer retaliation? Or do I just bite my tongue and let this go?

[00:27:42] Chris Duffy: Okay, so that's what not to do. What about the flip side? How do you design an anti-biased workplace? What are things that both bosses and workers can do to work towards this?

[00:27:51] Sara Sanford: Please work with an expert. It does not have to be me, but you don't have to reinvent the wheel. The methods are out there. GEN has them. The Harvard Business Review has done a lot of great writing in this area. Trust experts. This is a much more complicated topic than a lot of organizations realize. And then, form a comprehensive equity strategy that doesn't stop at, at recruiting. So when organizations come to us and they say, “We want a hiring and recruiting strategy”, we say, “We will only do that if you have a retention and development strategy.”

Um, and then be data-smart in your approach. That means that when you look at your employee survey data, make sure that you look at it through an intersectional lens. So don't just look at, “Oh, what are women experiencing and people of color experiencing?” Look at what women of color are experiencing because it's often very different.

[00:28:46] Chris Duffy: I wonder, since a lot of people now these days are working in either remote offices or hybrid offices, are there specific things that can be done and implemented in those kind of settings to combat bias?

[00:28:58] Sara Sanford: So one of the interesting things that we're seeing happen as some employees are going back to the office or offices are opening up to employees is that they've said, “Okay, whoever wants to come into the office can. Maybe you don't have a good office at home, or it's not quiet. Come in whenever you want.”

Professional women, working women during the pandemic are bearing the brunt of child-raising duties, overseeing schooling at home, overseeing a lot of care. Taking this means that they are not as available to come into the office. So what's happening by default is that those who are going back to the office by choice tend to be men. We do see this kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind bias then come into play in which the people that leaders see every day tend to be men. And that does influence their promotion decision-making processes.

[00:29:53] Sara Sanford: It’s not just that women and people of color were forced out of the workplace, it's also that they tended to be forced out of promotions. So, one of the recommendations we've made when we think about hybrid work environments is to create staggered schedules that everybody observes.

Okay, we're gonna go with two days a week. You can pick any two days, as an employee. Come in between the hours of 10 and three, so you avoid the terrible commute times. Parents can still drop their kids off, and it only works if leaders also do it.

[00:30:23] Chris Duffy: I imagine one of the things that I can do is buy your book and read more, but how can I get something like GEN, like a certification like that, an unbiased look in my own workplace? Imagining that I'm not the CEO of the company. Although if you're listening and you're the CEO, listen, you don't even need the advice, just do it.

[00:30:43] Sara Sanford: So we have made the information available on our website. It's the reference guide to the certification, and it lists every single indicator that we look at when we are assessing an organization for certification.

We've made it transparent enough that no matter what role you're in your company, you at least can advocate for a policy change that doesn't seem threatening and have the rationale behind doing so. So, as an example, a lot of organizations recruit diverse employees because they want the benefits of their diverse insight of collective intelligence.

[00:31:17] Sara Sanford: But when you have group meetings, we found that men tend to respond to questions more quickly than women do. White employees respond to questions more quickly than employees of color do. But, one way to hear from everyone is to put a policy in place that says, “Okay, I'm gonna ask a really important or significant question. It's important to me that I hear from everyone. So after I toss this out to the group, I want everyone to wait two minutes before anyone raises their hands.”

You’re far more likely to hear not just from women and people of color, but also introverts and those who are neurodivergent if you observe this. So, that is sitting on our website and our reference guide as one of many cultural levers that can be adjusted. We have footnoted everything that says this is the reason to do it.

[00:32:05] Chris Duffy: I am also always curious to hear how this affects your own idiosyncratic daily life, maybe in ways that are unexpected. So like how did these levers and how does thinking about these cultural change mechanisms, how does that drip into your day-to-day life?

[00:32:22] Sara Sanford: Um, for me personally?

[00:32:23] Chris Duffy: Yeah, for you personally.

[00:32:24] Sara Sanford: Yeah. Constantly.

[00:32:25] Chris Duffy: Like are you walking around into the coffee shop and you're like, “Wow. Before I say what I want, maybe I should wait two minutes and see if the barista will ask me?”

[00:32:33] Sara Sanford: Oh, yeah. It’s terrible, but it's also kind of wonderful. I mean, it does end up influencing every single part, I think, of my life, it's difficult for me to go through my day and not see these levers light up on their own around me. Even going into restaurants, one of the things I'm proud of when it comes to the certification is that we also address sectors that aren't just corporate.

So it was important to me that we address service industries, retail industries. And so one of the things we look at is restaurants, and what do workers really face there? And we found that in restaurants where at the top of the menu it says tipping is automatically included at the end, female servers are harassed less often.

Because in restaurants that don't have that, customers can tend to feel like they can get away with it, where it's, “Oh, you know what? I'm gonna flirt with her and she'll flirt back to get a tip.” That dynamic goes away when the tipping is built-in. The plus side, though, is that when I have seen organizations that do this, I thank them, where I say, “Oh, you've implemented a practice that we know makes this workplace more inclusive for everyone else out there.”

[00:33:43] Chris Duffy: This show's called How to Be a Better Human. What is one thing—it can be a book, a movie, a piece of music, an idea, a person, anything—What is one thing that has made you a better human?

[00:33:54] Sara Sanford: There is a podcast called This Plus That, that I dearly love, that a colleague named Brandi Stanley has just put out there, connecting the seemingly unconnectable.

And, so, she will have guests on to discuss things like quantum physics and absolute truth. Or neuroscience and dance where it will be two topics that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with one another. But I think from an intellectual perspective, it's made me a better human. And it kept me open to that idea that these two things that may not seem to influence each other somehow find a ripple that joins with the other ripple.

[00:34:31] Chris Duffy: What is one thing that you currently are working on to be a better human?

[00:34:36] Sara Sanford: Um, recently I've brought art back into my life. I had a bit of a dance background growing up and have returned to dance recently and actually took up drumming over the last year, and I think it has improved who I am as a human being.

I think it returns you to this mind place of thinking about possibility and just playing that what if game all the time and like, what if I did this? What if I did that? And really listening to other people and respecting them. I hope it has made me a better human.

[00:35:04] Chris Duffy: Well, Sara Sanford, thank you so much for making the time to be on the show. It's been a pleasure talking to you.

[00:35:08] Sara Sanford: Of course. Thank you, Chris. This is great.

[00:35:16] Chris Duffy: That is our show for today. Thank you so much for listening to How to Be a Better Human. I am your host, Chris Duffy, and thank you so much to today's guest, Sara Sanford. Those drums that you are hearing right now, that is Sara playing now. It's incredible. I love it. Sara's book is called Inclusion Inc.: How to Design Intersectional Equity Into the Workplace.

And from TED, Our show is brought to you by Sammy Case, Anna Phelan, Erica Yuen, and Julia Dickerson. If you take their initials and then you anagram them, you get DJ Spacey, a musical act that I strongly encourage them to start.

From Transmitter Media, we’re brought to you by Gretta Cohn and Farrah Desgranges, who are certified fresh.

And from PRX, we’ve got Jocelyn Gonzales and Sandra Lopez-Monsalve, who don't just change mindsets. They also change mechanics. And when their car breaks down, they change their mechanics' mindsets as well.

Thanks so much to you for listening to our show. Please share a show with a friend. Tell a stranger about it. Write us a review. Text the link to your coworkers. Help us spread the word. It makes such a huge difference. We will be back with a new episode for you next week. In the meantime, have a great and safe week. Thanks for listening.

11 superb speeches to inspire us to keep fighting for gender equality, even when we're exhausted

Moving forward requires focus. Mashable's Social Good Series is dedicated to exploring pathways to a greater good, spotlighting issues that are essential to making the world a better place.

It's been a particularly distressing year full of chaos, heartbreak, and loss. And though circumstances are tough and constantly striving for a better world can be exhausting, it's crucial that women (and men, too) continue in the fight for gender equality.

Gender discrimination and the gender pay gap are still realities that women face on a daily basis. And in 2020, women's rights to abortion and more may be at risk if a conservative winds up filling Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat.

Thankfully, a whole lot of strong women role models are out there to help lift us up and lead the way. Here are 11 speeches to inspire you to keep fighting for equality, no matter how challenging or hopeless things may feel.

1. Hillary Clinton's "Women's Rights are Human Rights" speech

You may recall Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential concession speech as one of her most memorable, but another truly remarkable address took place in September 1995.

During an impassioned speech at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, Clinton memorably declared, "Human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights."

The then first lady of the United States went on to passionately argue for the rights and freedom of women around the world. She highlighted the need for women to be protected and respected. She called for an end to violence against women and demanded that women be treated equally. She asked that women be given the same access to education, the same freedom of speech, and the same societal and political rights as men. And she lifted women up, as she's done so many times during her career.

2. Leymah Gbowee's 2012 Ted Talk

Leymah Gbowee, a Liberian peace activist, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 for the role she played in ending the Second Liberian Civil War in 2003. Gbowee's nonviolent organizing efforts were historic, and the social worker and women's rights advocate went on to deliver a powerful TED Talk in March 2012 called, "Unlock the intelligence, passion, greatness of girls."

Gbowee shared several formative personal experiences she's had while traveling around the world to speak. She talked about girls she's met and shared bits of their stories. She spoke about her work and the issues she fights for. And she spoke about hope.

"I don't have much to ask of you. I've also been to places in this U.S. and I know that girls in this country also have wishes — wishes for a better life," Gbowee said. "Somewhere in the Bronx... wish for a better life. Somewhere in downtown LA... wish for a better life. Somewhere in Texas... wish for a better life... Somewhere in New Jersey... wish for a better life. Will you journey with me to help that girl?… All they are asking us to do is create that space to unlock the intelligence, unlock the passion, unlock all of the great things that they hold within themselves. Let's journey together."

3. Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech

In October 2012, Julia Gillard, a former Australian politician who served as Australia's 27th prime minister from 2010 to 2013, delivered a powerful parliamentary speech on misogyny.

In response to opposition leader Tony Abbott's request to have Peter Slipper removed as Speaker over texts sent to an aide, Gillard took the mic and called Abbott out for his own sexist, misogynistic behavior.

"The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That's what he needs," Gillard began.

Over the course of the nearly 15-minute address, she proceeded to call out Abbott's "repulsive double standards" on misogyny and sexism.

In a September 2013 appearance on Australian's Kitchen Cabinet interview show, Abbott spoke about Gillard's speech. "Look, politics is about theater and at the time I didn't think it was very effective theater at all," he said. "But plainly it did strike a chord in a lot of people who had not followed the immediate problem that had brought on that particular parliamentary debate."

Strike a chord it did. Though Gillard's speech was seen as controversial by some, it resonated with so many women who had experienced similar behavior, and her words remain unforgettable.

4. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "We should all be feminists" TEDx talk

Some of you may be familiar with We Should All Be Feminists , the personal essay by Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie that was published as a book in 2014. But did you know the New York Times bestseller is an adapted version of a TEDx talk that the writer delivered in December 2012?

"We teach girls that they can have ambition, but not too much... to be successful, but not too successful, or they'll threaten men," the writer says to the audience. You may recognize bits of audio from the song "Flawless" off of Beyoncé's 2016 album, Lemonade , but Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's full 30-minute discussion of feminism, the role gender plays in today's society, the double standards among men and women, and her own personal experiences is required listening of its own.

5. Malala Yousafzai's 16th birthday address to the United Nations

When Nobel Prize-winning activist Malala Yousafzai turned 16 years old in July 2013, she delivered a profoundly inspiring address at the United Nations. Yousafzai spoke about how she had been shot by the Taliban in 2012, talked of her recovery and how grateful she was to be alive, and laid out an impassioned plea for equality.

"We call upon all communities to be tolerant — to reject prejudice based on cast, creed, sect, religion, or gender. To ensure freedom and equality for women so that they can flourish. We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back," Yousafzai said.

"Dear brothers and sisters, we want schools and education for every child's bright future. We will continue our journey to our destination of peace and education for everyone," she continued. "No one can stop us. We will speak for our rights and we will bring change through our voice. We must believe in the power and the strength of our words. Our words can change the world."

6. Emma Watson's gender equality speech at the United Nations

In September 2014, Emma Watson — British actor, activist, and United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador — delivered a powerful address on gender equality at a UN Women's HeForShe campaign event.

"Why has the word [feminism] become such an uncomfortable one? I am from Britain, and I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that will affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men," Watson said. "But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to see these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality."

Watson went on to explain how she came to understand the word "feminism." She shared personal experiences, discussed how harmful gender stereotypes are, and directly addressed men to remind them, "Gender equality is your issue, too."

7. Lupita Nyong'o speaking at a Black Women in Hollywood event

At Essence 's 2014 Black Women in Hollywood event, actor Lupita Nyong'o was honored for her role in 12 Years a Slave. Nyong'o received the award for "Best Breakthrough Performance" and proceeded to give a truly moving speech about what it means to be a Black woman in Hollywood.

Nyong'o began by sharing a passage from a fan letter she received. A young girl wrote to the actor to say, "I think you're really lucky to be this Black but yet this successful in Hollywood overnight. I was just about to buy Dencia's Whitenicious cream to lighten my skin when you appeared on the world map and saved me."

"My heart bled a little when I read those words," Nyong'o said. "I remember a time when I too felt unbeautiful. I put on the TV and only saw pale skin, I got teased and taunted about my night-shaded skin. And my one prayer to God, the miracle worker, was that I would wake up lighter-skinned."

Nyong'o shared her own struggles with self-image and self-acceptance growing up, expressing why diversity and on-screen representations are so important in the world.

8. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments about women on the Supreme Court

The world continues to mourn the loss of the great Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Sept. 18, 2020. But her legacy as a Supreme Court justice and fierce advocate for women's rights and equality will never be forgotten.

Justice Ginsburg gave her fair share of powerful speeches on gender equality over the course of her remarkable career, but several beloved RBG quotes were made when she visited Georgetown University in February 2015 and spoke about the many challenges women in her profession face.

"People ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is, 'When there are nine,'" Justice Ginsburg said. You can watch the full conversation here .

9. Michelle Obama's International Women's Day remarks

Like Justice Ginsburg, Michelle Obama has given a number of touching speeches over the course of her career. But on International Women's Day in 2016, the first lady gave an especially moving one at a Washington, D.C., event for Let Girls Learn , the White House initiative she launched to help fight for girls' education around the world.

"The more I traveled and met with girls and learned from experts about this issue, the more I realized that the barriers to girls' education isn't just resources. It's not just about access to scholarships or transportation or school bathrooms. It's also about attitudes and beliefs — the belief that girls simply aren't worthy of an education; that women should have no role outside the home; that their bodies aren't their own, their minds don't really matter, and their voices simply shouldn't be heard," she said.

After touching on additional issues of inequality, such as discrimination and violence against women, Obama went on to remind people there are still so many rights and freedoms to fight for.

"These issues aren't settled. These freedoms that we take for granted aren't guaranteed in stone. And they certainly didn't just come down to us as a gift from the heavens. No, these rights were secured through long, hard battles waged by women and men who marched, and protested, and made their voices heard in courtrooms and boardrooms and voting booths and the halls of Congress."

10. Raquel Willis calling to protect Black trans lives

Raquel Willis , writer and Black transgender activist, gave an extremely empowering speech to a crowd of 15,000 people at a Brooklyn rally for Black trans lives in June 2020.

"I am gonna talk to my Black trans folks first and model what it looks like to put us first," Willis said into the mic. "We have been told to be silent for too long. We have been told that we are not enough to parents, to family, to lovers, to Johns, to organizations, to schools, to our government, to the world. And the truth is that we're more than enough." 

Willis went on to remind Black trans folk to never doubt their power, to never fall silent, and to keep fighting for equality in workplaces, organizations, and every aspect of life. And she called on others to be active allies to the Black trans community.

"Don't ever doubt the faith that you should have for yourself and your people, cause we are the ones changing shit, and we are the lifeblood of everything they've built and tried to lock us out of," Willis said.

"I want you to all also remember, whether you are Black or trans or not, you have a duty and responsibility to elevate Black trans power," she added.

11. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's response to Congressman Ted Yoho

In the two years since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the Democratic primary election for New York's 14th congressional district, she's made her fair share of striking, inspirational speeches. After Justice Ginsburg died, the Congresswoman delivered raw, deeply emotional comments on Instagram Live that inspired many continue to fight for issues, like gender equality, that were so close to Ginsburg's heart.

One of AOC's most memorable speeches of 2020 took place in July when she spoke on the House floor to address the hateful comments that Republican Rep. Ted Yoho made toward her. After Yoho reportedly confronted AOC on the steps of Capitol Hill and called her "disgusting" and a "fucking bitch," the Congresswoman spoke out on behalf of herself and all women.

"When you do that to any woman, what Mr. Yoho did was give permission to other men to do that to his daughters," she said. "In using that language in front of the press he gave permission to use that language against his wife, his daughters, women in his community. And I am here to stand up to say that is not acceptable."

"I do not care what your views are. It does not matter how much I disagree, or how much it incenses me, or how much I feel that people are dehumanizing others. I will not do that myself," Ocasio-Cortez continued, noting that she would never use such disrespectful language toward Yoho or anyone else. "I will not allow people to change and create hatred in our hearts."

"Treating someone with dignity and respect makes a decent man, and when a decent man messes up, as we all are bound to do, he tries his best and does apologize," the Congresswoman said. "Not to save face. Not to win a vote. He apologizes genuinely to repair and acknowledge the harm he has done so that we can all move on."

Topics Activism Social Good

Nicole is a Senior Editor at Mashable. She primarily covers entertainment and digital culture trends, and in her free time she can be found watching TV, sending voice notes, or going viral on Twitter for admiring knitwear. You can follow her on Twitter @nicolemichele5 .

• 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 , X/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 professor of leadership and director of the Beeson International Center at Asbury Seminary, 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

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 ]

Why Gender Equity in the Workplace is Good for Business

Research indicates a correlation between gender equity and organizational success, yet it also points to obstacles for women in leadership.

Mary Sharp Emerson

A growing body of research indicates a strong correlation between gender equity and organizational success. Yet, it also points to persistent obstacles hindering the development and advancement of women in leadership.

At first glance, a number of indicators support the idea that gender equity in the workplace is within sight. More women than men are graduating with bachelor’s degrees. Women are no longer leaving the workforce to raise families in larger numbers than men. And women are playing an increasingly visible role in executive leadership. 

In the C-suite, for example, the number of women leaders has increased from 17 percent to 21 percent in the last five years, according to McKinsey & Company’s Women in the Workplace 2019 study . The research also shows senior-level women are being promoted at a higher rate than men, on average.

Still, a large gap between the number of men and women in leadership roles continues to persist. 

Moreover, it is increasingly clear that the gap starts early, often at the level of emerging leadership (entry- and mid-level management). Women are 18 percent less likely to be promoted than their male coworkers. This gap only widens further up the management chain: Men hold 62 percent of management positions, compared to 38 percent for women.

In other words, obstacles to early promotion into management create a long-term talent gap, hindering women’s ability to “climb the corporate ladder” into senior leadership roles.  

Successfully addressing this talent gap at the corporate level requires more than simply paying lip service to “diversity training.” Instead, it requires a thoughtful and strategic approach — across all levels of management, from the executive down to the middle manager — focused on ensuring an equal playing field, particularly at the lowest rungs of the management ladder.

Why Gender Equity Matters

In 2020, gender equity is more than simply a buzzword. A growing body of research now demonstrates fairly conclusively that a true commitment to diversity generally — and gender equity more specifically — can have concrete financial benefits. 

Ten years of research by McKinsey and LeanIn.org offers key statistics demonstrating a clear correlation between organizational diversity and financial performance. For instance:

• Companies with the greatest proportion of women on executive committees earned a 47 percent higher rate of return on equity than companies with no women executives.  
• Companies in the top 25 percent for gender diversity are 27 percent more likely to outperform their national industry average in terms of profitability.
• Companies in the bottom 25 percent for gender diversity were significantly less likely to see higher profits than their national industry average.

As McKinsey acknowledges, correlation is not the same as causation. Yet the consistency of the data over the past decade strongly indicates that the link between diversity at the leadership level and financial performance is not coincidental.

The link lies in organizational health. Organizations that actively create and promote strong internal processes dedicated to incorporating a variety of perspectives, experiences, and leadership styles consistently outperform competitors with homogenous leadership teams. 

This is true across many different dependent variables, from problem solving to analytic thinking to communication. And when taken together, success across these different variables adds up to strong financial performance.

Search all Leadership and Management programs.

Obstacles to Gender Equity Remain

Unfortunately, emerging women leaders continue to face obstacles hindering gender equity and their upward mobility. And, perhaps surprisingly, these obstacles exist primarily at the first and second rungs of the corporate ladder.  

The long-term result is a profound gap in the talent pipeline, according to McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace 2018 study : 

Starting at the manager level, there are significantly fewer women to promote from within and significantly fewer women at the right experience level to hire in from the outside. So even though hiring and promotion rates improve at more senior levels, women can never catch up—we’re suffering from a “hollow middle.” This should serve as a wake-up call: until companies close the early gaps in hiring and promotion, women will remain underrepresented.

Thus, a key step in closing this talent gap at the level of the emerging leader is identifying — and eliminating — the barriers to entry facing women eager to move into leadership roles. These obstacles include: 

• Unconscious bias and discrimination (intentional or unintentional)
• Fewer opportunities to showcase leadership skills
• Lack of support and advocacy by immediate supervisor(s)
• Less opportunity to network up the management chain
• Failure to recognize the benefits of diverse leadership and communication strategies
• Lack of advice on career advancement
• Ongoing assumptions about willingness to remain in the workforce long-term
• Failure to make diversity and gender parity a true priority at all levels of management

The “hollow middle,” or talent gap at the bottom rung of the corporate ladder, will persist until leaders and managers take active steps to eliminate these and other obstacles women face as they attempt to move into management. 

Most critically, change must be driven down from senior leadership to the level where it matters the most: with a commitment to gender equity among middle-level managers who are most likely to influence women’s career advancement.

Find related Leadership and Management programs.

Browse all Professional & Executive Development programs.

About the Author

Digital Content Producer

Emerson is a Digital Content Producer at Harvard DCE. She is a graduate of Brandeis University and Yale University and started her career as an international affairs analyst. She is an avid triathlete and has completed three Ironman triathlons, as well as the Boston Marathon.

Planning for Tomorrow’s Disruption

How to leverage critical leadership lessons from today’s crisis to anticipate and prepare for the next disruption.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Society and culture
• Equality, rights and citizenship

Lynne Featherstone's speech on women in the workplace

This speech was delivered by Lynne Featherstone on 1 December 2011.

It is a real pleasure to be here today at this important event with so many people who have the ability to influence the ‘gender agenda’ to positive effect.

The issues which will be discussed here today - women in the workplace, women in the board room and work life balance - have been receiving increasing media commentary lately.

From Lord Davies’ work on women in the boardroom to our plans to extend the right to request flexible working, the role women can play in getting the economy back in shape is on top of the Governments’ agenda.

I actually think you could rename this event the ‘growth agenda’!

Because this government’s first priority is to get our economy back in shape.

That means dealing with the deficit. And it means stimulating growth.

Giving all women the opportunity to achieve their full potential must be at the heart of our approach to economic growth.

We have seen huge progress over the years and women now make up around half of the workforce.

However, women still experience inequalities. The gender pay gap still exists and there are still barriers which women have to face including lack of female role models, the long hours culture, and a lack of transparency around the recruitment process of senior positions.

And this is all in spite of women performing better than men in the education system and coming out of university with better qualifications than men.

Tackling these inequalities is therefore not just crucial for our generation but for future generations of women.

One of the best ways to do this is to tackle gender stereotyping, particularly in careers advice that young people receive.

A recent Girls Attitudes Survey found that many girls and young women would defer having children for their perfect career.

That should not be necessary.

And a third of girls surveyed thought that becoming a hairdresser or beautician were popular career choices for girls because it was all girls knew about.

I don’t mind what field young girls decide to enter, whether it be hairdressing or engineering or even politics.

But I do mind if girls are being put off certain careers because they are seen as traditionally male or funnelled into certain careers because they perceive them to be more suited to women.

It is important girls have the same opportunities and access to whatever career they choose and that they are fully informed about the career choices they make and what this will mean for their income and their future.

The evidence

Tackling these inequalities isn’t just a matter of fairness; it is also one of economic strength.

To put things into perspective, if in this country we fully used the skills and qualifications of women who are currently out of work, it could deliver economic benefits of fifteen to twenty one billion pounds per year.

That’s more than double the value of all our annual exports to China.

And even that massive figure underestimates the benefits that could come from every woman achieving her full potential.

As a country, in these tough times, we can’t afford to keep missing out.

So we in government are working hard to help women in business to fulfil their potential - for the good of our society and for the good of our economy.

Flexible working

One of the biggest challenges facing women is balancing work and family life.

The traditional, inflexible, 9-5 model of work just doesn’t make sense any more.

It doesn’t make sense for modern businesses in a global economy working across many time zones, nor does it make sense for most modern families, where often both parents want to work or for many one parent families, where staying at home just isn’t an option.

And by restricting flexible working to certain groups, the idea is perpetuated that it’s some sort of special treatment, rather than being a sensible way to run a business.

Which is why this Government wants to help all hard working employees to balance their work and other commitments by extending the right to request flexible working to everyone. We believe that this will go some way in helping to shift attitudes.

Flexible parental leave

And we can go even further. The current system of maternity and paternity leave just reinforces the old stereotype that when a couple start a family, women should stay at home and look after the children and men should go out to work and earn the money.

But we know that fathers want to spend more time with their children so under our proposed new system of flexible parental leave, if fathers want to take more of a role in raising their children, they can.

If mothers want to return to work earlier, they can.

If both parents want to spend some time at home together after the birth of their child, they can.

Women on Boards

But I think we all know that there’s only so much that government alone can do.

Change will only come when businesses themselves realise the benefits and I would like to thank in particular the McKinsey research series ‘Women Matter’ for setting out the business case and the huge benefits of having a more gender diverse board.

I think the big difference, overall, between what we are doing now and what’s been tried before is that we are moving away from government dictating how businesses should be run via endless legislation.

We’re working alongside business to help them make their workplaces better for women.

Because let’s think about this in a hard-headed business way.

Research shows companies with more women on their boards out-perform their rivals, with over 40 per cent higher return in sales, 66 per cent higher return on capital and over 50 per cent higher return on equity.

So this isn’t equality for equality’s sake - it’s just good business sense.

We believe it’s a business-led approach which is needed to bring about change in the boardroom.

Last year, only 12.5% of all FTSE 100 board members were women.

That’s not good enough.

And that’s why last year we commissioned Lord Davies to report on this issue and to make recommendations to help get more talented women into the boardroom.

Six months on from his report, important steps forward have been made:

• The Financial Reporting Council has announced it will amend the Corporate Governance Code to strengthen the principle of boardroom diversity.
• The head-hunting industry has agreed a code on diversity.
• And the numbers themselves are moving in the right direction. Women now make up over 14% of FTSE 100 Directors - up from last year.
• The number of female board appointments since the report’s publication has almost doubled going from 13% last year to 24% now.
• And the number of all male boards on the FTSE 100 has almost halved - it now stands at 12, down from 21 last year.

But there is still a long way to go. 

So we’ll be working with Lord Davies, and with business, to make sure we keep up momentum.

Of course mandatory quotas can offer a short cut or a quick fix to increase female representation.

But women want to be there on merit alone.

89% of women the Lord Davies Group spoke to during the course of the review were not in favour of quotas, they feared being considered mere tokens or side lined within the boardroom.

My view is that the right person for a role should be chosen on the basis of their ability and experience. This is about delivering better decision-making, better policies, not about political correctness.

Business performance is absolutely critical, because if you can demonstrate success from diversity and if it’s valued by the business, then it will not only be accepted, but encouraged.

Voluntary Gender Equality Reporting

Employers need to play their part in bringing about change.

And again some of our top companies now realise this.

That’s why in September Government joined senior figures from Tesco, BT, the leading law firm Eversheds, the CBI and others to launch ‘Think, Act, Report’, our new initiative to improve transparency on pay and wider workplace equality that will help drive change, including closing down the gender pay gap.

The simple, step-by-step process involves companies first identifying any issues around gender equality in their workforce or pay structures.

Then taking action to address those issues.

And finally reporting publicly on progress.

So: Think, Act and Report.

I want all of you here today to consider Thinking, Acting and Reporting on gender equality in your organisations. Don’t wait to follow others - take the lead.

Business Mentors

And everyone here today has another important task.

You can act as drivers of change, to inspire more young women to become the leaders of tomorrow.

This isn’t just for the good of women, but for the long term benefit of the country and the economy.

There are already more than 1.1 million self-employed women in the UK, nearly a third of the total self-employed population.

But although women in Britain are more entrepreneurial than their counterparts in Germany, Italy and Japan, women in Britain are still less likely than women in the USA to start their own businesses.

That’s why, earlier this month we announced that we will provide resources for 5,000 volunteer business mentors to be recruited and trained to offer effective support to women who want to start or grow their own business. 

Banking Investigation

The Deputy Prime Minister has also asked me to look into whether women are discriminated against when they seek access to finance to start or expand their business.

We’ll be working closely with the banks, women business owners and other stakeholders on how we can fix this.

Women’s Business Council

So we’re taking real action to help women in business.

But we can’t stop there - we need to maintain momentum and keep exploring new ways to help women achieve their full potential.

This is why we recently announced that we will be establishing a Women’s Business Council, to provide advice to the Home Secretary, to the Chancellor and to the Business Secretary on what can be done to maximise women’s contribution to our future economic growth.

This important new body will provide recommendations on public policy that affects women in business and will seek to improve the business environment for women so as to maximise profit and success.

The policies I have talked about today, like flexible working and flexible parental leave, will help.

They will make a real practical difference. 

As I said at the beginning of my speech everyone here has the potential to have a positive influence on the ‘gender agenda’ and we need to work together to do this.

This is not just something which is good for women - if we can make progress on this agenda it will be good for the economy and therefore we all need to consider it a necessity and start to take action now!

Updates to this page

Related content, is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wage disparities

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

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

Lack of representation in leadership

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

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

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

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

Gender stereotype

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

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

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

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

Sexual harassment

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

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

Work-life balance

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

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

2. What are the consequences of workplace gender inequality?

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

Economic drawbacks

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

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

Mental health implications

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

Stunted innovation

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

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

3. How to combat gender inequality at work ?

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

Equal pay and transparency

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

Development and mentorship programs

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

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

Flexible work arrangements

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

Anti-discrimination policies

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

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

Addressing unconscious bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe for more great IMD content 💌

Subscribe now for exclusive content from imd.

Below are key leadership tips and strategies for driving successful digital and AI transformation in Asia.  As organizations in Asia continue to evolve business models and cultural mindsets in their digital transformation and innovation journey, understanding how to navigate this dynamic landscape is crucial for leaders.  1. Understanding regional diversity   The key to successful transformation […]

As businesses worldwide navigate the complexities of digital transformation and digital culture, the demand for leaders who can seamlessly integrate new technologies into the fabric of their organizations’ operations becomes increasingly critical. Not only do these leaders need to be administrators but also visionaries who understand the potential of digital and AI technologies to revolutionize […]

In the swiftly evolving AI landscape, the call for a digital leader is louder than ever. With the advent of generative AI and rapid technological advancements, the competencies required for leadership are being fundamentally reshaped. Traditional models of management and strategy are making way for new paradigms that prize agility, vision, tenacity, and ambidexterity. Keep […]

87% of digital transformation initiatives fail.   In our swiftly evolving digital landscape, successful digital and AI transformation is proving to be an elusive goal for many organizations. At the same time, a silent and ever-widening chasm is separating the front runners from the stragglers. This divide is not just about the speed at which different […]

DEI in 2024 is a more polarized topic than in 2020 – Check out our recent survey and get the insights Download the report

• Inside HR |
• Stories & Insights |
• Diversity & Inclusion |

Gender inequality in the workplace: A lack of women in leadership

An experienced recruiter and HR professional who has transferred her expertise to insightful content to support others in HR.

“We all have stories to tell and projects we need financed. Don’t talk to us about it at the parties tonight. Invite us into your office in a couple days, or you can come to ours, whatever suits you best, and we’ll tell you all about them.”

It was March 5, 2018, when Frances McDormand during her Oscar acceptance speech for Best Actress sent a powerful message: women have ideas and, to put those ideas into action, they need a seat at the table.

This message goes beyond Hollywood and the film industry; women in the workplace today should be equal with their male colleagues. And it’s not just about representation for the sake of it; it’s not about striking gender balance in numerical terms. Of course, that’s a good start. But, to elaborate on McDormand’s point, what’s even more important is to bring gender balance in leadership roles, in the decision-making process and in the strategic part of the business.

With International Women’s Day just around the corner, now seems like the perfect time to further the discussion on gender balance, particularly in leadership. Every year, on March 8, the rights of women in education, equal pay and fair treatment at work are assessed worldwide. And while the battle against gender inequality in the workplace is not a one-day event, this day is still a good opportunity to assess where we stand right now, what has changed from this time last year and previous years, and where we can improve.

Gender equality at work in numbers

In a Pew Research Center survey , we find out that “today’s young women are starting their careers better educated than their male counterparts.” And as most women now get higher education than their mothers and grandmothers before them, they’re able to bring those skills to the workplace and this has started to show. In other research , we learn that Americans don’t find significant differences between women and men in their ability to run a company, with numbers varying based on sector.

In fact, in certain industries, women seem to have an advantage based on the survey’s findings. 31% think a woman would do a better job running a retail chain, while only 6% can say the same for a man. In healthcare, 19% think a woman would be a better choice as a hospital’s manager, while less than half (8%) would say the same for a man.

Various studies indicate that when women get senior positions, companies become more profitable. (Some examples here and here .) These numbers help investors look towards female-founded companies. They also make business owners consider diversifying their senior management.

… and the bad

Only 23 of 239 VC-backed unicorn companies across the world have female founders, while women are underrepresented in CEO positions, too, with only 4% of US Fortune 500  companies having a female CEO. For women of color, the numbers are even more disappointing, as only 4% hold a C-suite role among US companies. In the same 2018 Woman in the Workplace study , we learn that for every 100 men who are promoted to manager level, only 79 women are promoted and, if we break down the data even more, just 60 black women are promoted.

In a YoY analysis , we can see that women are getting more places in the board, but men outnumber women significantly in all regions. For example, between 2005 and 2014 European companies had 14% women in their boards and this percentage rose to 24% since 2014. In other areas the inequality of men and women is even larger: for example, in Japan, the same metric went from 1% to 2% and in North America from 15% to 18%.

Finally, working women may now get higher salaries than in the past, but they still make less than their male colleagues . Based on data from the US Census Bureau , a woman makes 80.5 cents for every dollar a man earns. And when it comes to the highest incomes, the job aggregating service, Adzuna , found that only 11% of those who earn more than $100,000 per annum are female employees.

Build inclusive hiring practices

Creating a safe and equitable workplace starts with hiring. That's why we've developed solutions to cultivate inclusivity and support diversity at every stage of the hiring process.

Why is there such a gender inequality in the workplace?

Everyone is all about Diversity & Inclusion in the workplace these days. Still, the numbers above tell a different story. It seems like we want to bring more women in leadership, but we don’t really know how to do that.

There’s a long history of gender imbalance

One of the main reasons for this gender inequity is that we’re tied to old habits. Historically, C-suite roles are held by men and in certain industries, such as tech or manufacturing, the discrepancy is even more obvious. Think, for example, an engineering position. Traditionally, there have always been more male job applicants for a role like this, so naturally these male candidates get hired and eventually promoted to managerial roles.

Even if now things have changed and more women choose to study engineering and web development, it’s still tough for them to enter this male-dominant space. And when they enter, they come across a dead end. For men, the career path seems pre-determined; their (male) managers have already showed the way. But how can women compete with their male colleagues who are already in track of becoming managers? Most importantly, how can they advance their careers if no one’s advocating for them and if there are no other female leaders who can set the example?

Unconscious bias is all around us

“Men are more assertive than women, that’s why they request and get a promotion more often.”

“After a certain age, women will struggle to balance family needs with the requirements of a senior position.”

“Women are more sensitive, thus not able to handle the pressure that goes with leadership.”

These are all generalizations and stereotypes, yet they impact the way women are treated in the workplace . We’re inclined to think that women won’t be able to handle their management duties, instead of creating a work-life balanced environment for all employees or instead of building up those necessary leadership skills among our high-potential staff, regardless their gender.

Age discrimination in the workplace is also a common issue specifically for women. They’re often overlooked for a promotion under the assumption that they might get pregnant soon. Or, they’re not easily given a chance to move their career forward and take on challenging tasks once they return at work after a short break.

Bringing more women in leadership

In most countries, more women have now access to high education and they’re performing better than their male students. We’re surrounded by strong females who openly take a stand against inequity and influence other women to do the same. Global movements like #MeToo turn the spotlight on what once used to be a taboo issue. These are all signs that allow for some optimism.

But we can’t truly tackle gender inequality in the workplace just by sitting around and waiting for things to change, or even voicing a desire to make things better. We need to get proactive if we want to achieve gender balance.

Benefit from the ripple effect

The quickest solution to fix the lack of women in leadership roles is to hire women in leadership roles. Affirmative actions will bring you results in the short-term. But they will also have a long-term impact. Simply put: hiring one woman in a senior position raises the total number of females with a senior-level job by one. But in the future, this woman is likely to hire and promote more women too. So, eventually, that number will go even higher.

This happens for two reasons. First, that woman is able to better understand the potential of her peers and can advocate for them. She also understands how her team can benefit from gender balance and knows where to look for new female team members. Second, she acts as a role model for other women who might be otherwise more hesitant to apply for a job at an all-men team. Seeing a woman at the wheel, though, they get the message that this particular team (and company in general) values women and gives them the opportunity to grow.

Along these lines, Rachel Bates, Workable’s SVP of Sales & Marketing, described how – and why – she built a gender balanced sales team as a female hiring manager. And the need to do that was clear after she realized that, when looking for a new job in late 2016, 49 out of 50 times she was interviewed by a man.

Opt for tailor-made support to women

The fact that men outnumber women in senior positions makes the workplace look like a boys’ club . And we’re not just talking about toxic situations where male coworkers engage into locker room talk or female employees get harassed. A “boys’ club” exists when there’s no representation for women in decision-making. Because that’s when female voices are rarely heard and their needs are overlooked.

To change that, we don’t need more discussion on why gender balance in the workplace is good; we need tangible steps. But that’s a hard thing to do when you’re the only woman in your team. Sharing advice with other successful women; having a female mentor; actively participating in women’s groups: these are all ways for women to learn from each other and get empowered in the workplace. Organizations like She Geeks Out do exactly this: create a network, a safe place for women who want to advance their careers. Recently, we collaborated with SGO for an event dedicated to age and gender discrimination and learned what companies can do to tackle these challenges. You can also watch the recording of our event:

Here’s another aspect of that “boys’ club” mentality: 98% of VC funding goes to men . Women with great business ideas still struggle to get financial help. And it’s this exact unfairness that certain VC companies try to address, by funding only female-led startups.

Make a sustainable change

Gender balance in the workplace , and specifically in leadership roles, it’s not a quota you want to reach. Let’s say you actively look for and hire more women in senior-level jobs at your company. If you don’t support those women, then they won’t be able to make a difference in the organization. If you don’t support career growth for the rest of your women who now hold an entry-level position, then soon you’ll face gender imbalance again.

If you want to fix gender inequality in the workplace , you have to fight the problem at its roots. You need to implement company-wide policies that promote equity, you need to train executives and employees across all levels on biases and you need to engage the “privileged” group – men – in discussions on why gender balance is important.

Only when we’ve all realized why equity in the workplace is important and when we’re all committed to fight discrimination, we’ll be able to truly create work environments where every employee has equal rights in leading and thriving. It’s not just the movie industry that Frances McDormand is referring to – it’s the workplace at large.

Frequently asked questions

Need action and results in your dei initiative.

Find diverse candidates, eliminate unconscious bias while hiring, and measure your impact.

Improve DEI

Related topics

Inside HR | Stories & Insights | Ask an Expert |

Gen z: helpless or just asking for help.

Inside HR | Stories & Insights | Hiring Pulse |

Your hiring pulse report for august 2024, stories & insights | hiring pulse |, your hiring pulse report for may-june 2024.

Freelancers on the rise: adapting HR strategies for the new era

New guide: calculate the roi of an ats.

Need to start saving with a new ATS? Calculate the ROI of your ATS with our template.

Popular topics

• Candidate sourcing and attraction
• Working together with others
• Maximizing candidate & employee experience
• Finding & attracting people
• Digitizing work processes
• Ensuring compliance best practices

Let's grow together

Explore our full platform with a 15-day free trial. Post jobs, get candidates and onboard employees all in one place.

Share on Mastodon

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

Wharton Stories

3 ways to empower women and tackle gender inequity in the workplace.

The 2019 Wharton Women Business Conference brought female students together to discuss how to achieve their goals in an ever-changing professional landscape.

On a brisk Friday afternoon, over 100 undergraduate women attended the 2019 Wharton Women Business Conference: EmpowHER. The annual conference is the cornerstone event of the spring semester for Wharton Women , the University’s largest paid-member undergraduate student organization. This year’s theme? Empowering women leaders in the business world through upperclassmen mentorship, inspirational speakers, and practical skills.

The day consisted of a networking lunch, a fireside chat with Lori Tauber Marcus, W’84 , Founder of Courtyard Connections, a keynote speech by Jane Sadowsky, C’83, WG’89 , Senior Advisor at Moelis & Company, and a negotiations workshop led by Dr. Nazli Bhatia , a lecturer at Wharton. The speakers touched on a range of topics from the prevalence of job-hopping in today’s society, to how to negotiate win-win outcomes, and even the best yoga parallels. However, the salient theme of the conference was workplace equality and its evolution over the years.

Here are three key takeaways from the conference:

1. Understand the importance of mentoring and helping others.

Mentoring is a key resource that promotes internal growth and provides opportunities for valuable connections. Sadowsky referenced a policy that she practices at Moelis & Company: 15 by 15. “By the fifteenth of the month, you have to spend fifteen minutes helping another person. Mentorship increases your network of contacts and is a virtuous cycle that you can do in a minute a day.”

Mentoring is also mutually beneficial — both mentor and mentee gain knowledge and experience. Marcus also emphasized the importance of asking questions, adding that this was her great superpower. ”Be comfortable knowing that you aren’t the smartest one in the room. Ask questions,” she said.

2. Assess the workplace environment.

Dr. Nazli began her workshop on negotiations by expanding on the common “glass ceiling” motif, pointing out that gender inequity in the workplace “is more of a maze: a much more complicated, sophisticated situation that requires careful consideration.” Recognizing the dynamics of the workplace environment is the first step towards discovering if there is a problem.

Marcus said it was essential to know the “tapes” that are playing in other people’s heads in order to understand their unconscious bias. Although undeniable improvements regarding gender equality in the workplace have been made in recent decades, there is more work to be done before women are equal to men in every industry.

Sadowsky recalled her struggles and experiences as a recent graduate working on Wall Street, often the only woman on her team, compared with today’s seemingly more progressive work environments. However, Sadowsky warned that the problem hasn’t been solved. “We have entered an era of a new kind of glass ceiling — deliberate segregation that is more covert.”

3. Do your part.

Change is partly top-down driven and many companies have implemented countless positive initiatives, such as using data and improving recruiting tactics to increase exposure and widen applicant pools. However, a collective force is necessary to make a lasting impact on the workplace. Everyone has a part in ensuring a future where men and women are seen as equals in every work environment. Even amplifying another woman’s positive comments is a step in the right direction.

“Advancement requires opportunity. Advancement requires mentoring. Advancement requires recognition,” Sadowsky said. Diverse opinions come from diverse people and inclusion leads to learning new skills. Keeping those ideals in mind can help establish equal opportunities.

Marcus emphasized the need for a unified effort. “We all have a responsibility. We can’t let those things go. We have to take those shots or things won’t change,” she said.

— Erin Lomboy, W’21

Posted: February 19, 2019

• Conferences
• Driving Insights
• Philadelphia

The Wharton School

Student resources.

Wharton Women aims to provide direction, insight, and camaraderie to women from all four of Penn’s undergraduate schools who are interested in business or intend to enter the business world upon graduation. Through numerous initiatives such as cornerstone events, lunches with faculty, professionals, and fellow undergrads, industry career panels, and philanthropy work, Wharton Women promotes the establishment of valuable industry contacts and aids the transition between the University and the workplace.

Related Content

Student Startups from 4 U.S. Business Schools Compete at B-School Disrupt

Four Ways This Navy Officer Is Expanding His Perspective and Prospects in Wharton’s EMBA Program

4 Things You May Not Have Known about Islam from the AMA Panel

3 Benefits You’ll Get from Taking a Global Modular Course at Wharton

From the Battlefield to the Boardroom

Why this Married Couple Came to Wharton’s Executive MBA Program Together

How This Family-Owned Business Operator Is Discovering New Opportunities in Wharton’s EMBA Program

This Student Is Strengthening Science Policy in California Through Wharton’s EMBA Program

How 1,200 MBA Students Helped Small Businesses Survive the Pandemic

How This EMBA Student Is Bringing Wharton Insights Back to Amazon

How this Hotel Executive Prepared for the Quant Aspects of Wharton’s EMBA Program

Students Offer Sweet Solutions to Data Problems at the Analytics Accelerator Challenge

How The Big Idea Bridges MBA Pre-term and Academics

5 Tips to Keep Your Sanity While Getting Your Startup Off the Ground

How This Undergrad Takes Advantage of Diverse Opportunities at Wharton and Penn

Women in construction: Smashing down the concrete walls that keep them out

Quotas can be useful to address gender inequality, but they only work if they’re pitched at the right level and are accompanied by society-wide efforts to break down gender stereotypes.

Women don’t want to work in macho environments where they feel they don’t belong. To attract women, the culture has to change to become less ‘blokey’, less aggressive, more diverse and more inclusive. But it’s a classic Catch-22 situation – women don’t want to work in a toxic culture, and the culture won’t change without more women.

International Women's Day is the perfect time to reflect on the complexities of achieving gender equality in the construction industry, and to focus on what can be done to change the status quo.

It’s sobering to realise that the rate of participation for women in the construction industry is getting worse, not better. This is despite decades of talk about how to attract and retain women in construction, by groups such as the National Association of Women in Construction ( NAWIC ).

The Victorian government has decided the time for talk is over, and has introduced quotas for female participation on government construction projects.

Many may think this is a good response from the government, but unfortunately it’s unlikely to fix the problem. Quotas can be useful to address gender inequality, but they only work if they’re pitched at the right level and are accompanied by society-wide efforts to break down gender stereotypes.

Research from Norway shows that 33% is the critical mass – when you get to one-third of women, the culture changes. It was found that:

“If the percentage is lower than this, the effect is little more than symbolic. It is when women feel that there are several of them, that they are not sitting alone at the table, that they begin to exercise their power.”

Although this research was based on women on boards, it’s reasonable to surmise that the same principles apply to other work environments.

Read more:  He said, she said: Shining a light on gender and political leadership in Australia

If women in construction remain a minuscule minority, there’ll be no change to the macho, sexist culture that dominates construction, and no change to systemic gender stereotypes.

The Victorian government’s Building Equality Policy (BEP) requires that women make up:

• 3% of each trade role
• 7% of each non-trade position
• 35% of management, supervisor and specialist labour roles.

In addition, 4% of labour hours for apprenticeships and trainees must also be performed by women.

Given that at the moment women make up 2.5% of tradies and on-site construction workers, these quotas can only be described as underwhelming. The more so since there’s a two-year transition period (consequences for failing to comply only kick in in 2024), and the quotas only apply to government projects of more than $20 million – hardly the sort of radical change that will ‘disrupt’  gender stereotypes in construction, as the government asserts.

It’s not all doom and gloom

There are some positive aspects. For one thing, BEP is an Australian first; it must be understood as the start of the journey towards construction industry reform, not the end.

Another positive is that there’s not been a vocal outcry in response to the initiative. Often the introduction of quotas is met with strong opposition from employers, who want to retain the “old boys’ network”, and who say there are simply not enough women to meet the required targets.

The potential shortage of women to fill positions has been recognised and addressed by the government.

BEP is not a standalone initiative. It sits within the Women in Construction Strategy 2019-22 . Developed in partnership with the Building Industry Consultative Council , the comprehensive strategy begins by recognising that in the construction industry, women do not get or keep the jobs, and that there’s a severe discrepancy between the number of female students in construction fields and the number of women employed in construction.

The strategy also recognises that in construction, women are in less-secure, low-paid positions, and that their prospect of career progression is limited. Finally, the strategy acknowledges that the low retention rate for women in construction is because they’re excluded and made to feel unwelcome.

To address these systemic problems, the Women in Construction Strategy proposes a three-pronged approach:

• The industry must attract more women to take up a trade or blue-collar jobs
• The industry must recruit more women
• The industry must retain more women.

Smashing down the concrete walls that stop women entering and staying in the construction industry requires commitment and a multi-faceted, whole-of-society approach.

For example, if girls in schools don’t see the construction industry and trades as viable career options, they won’t pursue pathways into construction.

If they don’t see role models like them and receive encouragement to explore careers in construction, they’re lost to the industry.

Thus, we need transformations in societal attitudes towards gender stereotypes, gender bias, gender inequality and gendered violence.

The changes we need to see are not just in the construction industry, but also in homes, in schools, and in the very fabric of our society.

To retain the women the construction industry does attract, it needs to move from a rigid macho work environment to one that is flexible and respectful of women.

Excessive work hours, inflexible work arrangements and an unwillingness to recognise caring responsibilities make the construction industry an unhappy and unsafe place for all workers.

Suicide rates among construction workers are higher than any other group in Australia – we lose a construction worker to suicide every second day.

This International Women’s Day, it’s time to be bold, to tackle the hard issues, so that the Australian construction industry becomes a safe, welcoming and rewarding workspace for all people, regardless of their gender.

This not only benefits women, but the entire industry by widening the talent pool, addressing the skill shortages and improving the reputation and wellbeing of an industry in crisis.

• Workplace culture
• Gender inequality in the workplace
• women and construction
• International Women's day
• quotas in workplaces
• Building Equality Policy
• Women in Construction Strategy 2019-22

Paula Gerber

Professor of Law

Talkin’ all that jazz: Unsilencing gender in music

Research, education and music practice need to be aligned to ensure women's voices in jazz are heard.

The flaws in sexual harassment laws

Unlike workplace safety laws, there's nothing in place that requires employers to take action to identify the risk of sexual harassment.

Raised voices

More women artists are stepping into cultural leadership, benefiting the arts and the wider community.

Call for more anti-discrimination muscle

Private mediation has been a roadblock to advances in anti-discrimination law in Victoria. Could a new corporate watchdog be the answer?

You may republish this article online or in print under our Creative Commons licence. You may not edit or shorten the text, you must attribute the article to Monash Lens, and you must include the author’s name in your republication.

If you have any questions, please email [email protected]

Republishing Guidelines

https://lens.monash.edu/republishing-guidelines

Labour, Gender Inequalities and the SDGs: Why Is Decent Work a Gendered Question?

• First Online: 23 August 2024

Cite this chapter

• Louisa Acciari 3  

Part of the book series: Sustainable Development Goals Series

This chapter discusses the interconnection between the SDGs decent work and gender equality and argues that decent work is a feminist and gendered issue. Given the gendered stratification of the labour market and the impact of unpaid care work on women’s opportunities, I demonstrate that decent work cannot be achieved without working simultaneously on gender equality. To do so, SDG 8 must include a gender perspective and revise its indicators in order to recognise the value of care work and the specificities of women’s labour. Based on two empirical examples of campaigns developed by grassroots women’s groups in Brazil, namely, the Institute Women of the Amazon and the National Federation of Domestic Workers, this chapter further provides some concrete ideas to rethink and adapt the SDG decent work with a gender perspective. Indeed, the work of these women shows the importance of care work and reproductive labour and creates the necessary connections between gender, care and labour to foster a more inclusive and more sustainable model of development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

DIEESE (2023), Inserção das Mulheres no Mercado de Trabalho: https://www.dieese.org.br/infografico/2023/infograficosMulheres2023.html

ILO decent work agenda: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm

UN SDGs: https://sdgs.un.org/goals

DIEESE (2022a), Trabalho Doméstico no Brasil : https://www.dieese.org.br/infografico/2022/trabalhoDomestico.html , last consulted on 19/12/2022

Spotlight Report: https://gtagenda2030.org.br/relatorio-luz/

DIEESE (2022b), Boletim especial 8 de março – dia da mulher : https://www.dieese.org.br/boletimespecial/2022/mulher.html

PAHO (2021), Gendered Health Analysis: Covid-19 in the Americas : https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/55432/PAHOEGCCOVID-19210006_eng.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

SOF (2020), Sem Parar: o trabalho e a vida das mulheres na pandemia : https://mulheresnapandemia.sof.org.br

IMA’s website: https://imabr.org

Agenda 2030 of the Women of the Amazon: https://imabr.org/agenda-2021-30/

See FENATRAD’s website: https://fenatrad.org.br/2020/03/18/cuida-de-quem-te-cuida-proteja-sua-trabalhadora-domestica/

Acciari L (2019) Decolonising labour, reclaiming subaltern epistemologies: Brazilian domestic workers and the international struggle for labour rights. Contexto Int 41(1):39–63

Article   Google Scholar  

Acciari L, dos Santos Brito C (2021) Impactos da Crise Pandêmica no Trabalho Doméstico: Velhas Causas, Novas Consequências. In: Pinto PCP et al (eds) Os sindicatos das trabalhadoras domésticas em tempos de pandemia: memórias da resistência. FACOS - UFSM, Santa Maria, pp 32–50

Google Scholar  

Acciari L, del Carmen Britez J, del Carmen Morales Pérez A (2021) Right to health, right to live: domestic workers facing the COVID-19 crisis in Latin America. Gend Dev 29(1):11–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2021.1885213

Acciari L, dos Santos Brito C, Pinto C (2023) Essential yet excluded: Covid-19 and the decent work deficit for domestic workers in Brazil. Int Labour Rev. Accepted Manuscript. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ilr.12402

Acker J (2004) Gender, capitalism and globalization. Crit Sociol 30(1):17–41

Berkhout SG, Richardson L (2020) Identity, politics, and the pandemic: why is COVID-19 a disaster for feminism(s)? Hist Philos Life Sci 42(4):49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00346-7

Bernardino-Costa J (2007) Colonialidade do Poder e Subalternidade: os sindicatos das trabalhadoras domésticas no Brasil. Revista Brasileia do Caribe VII(14):311–345

Bhattacharya T (2017) Introduction: mapping social reproduction theory. In: Bhattacharya PT (ed) Social reproduction theory: remapping class, recentering oppression. Pluto Press, London, pp 1–21

Biroli F (2015) Responsabilidades, cuidado e democracia. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política 18:81–117

Borah Hazarika O, Das S (2021) Paid and unpaid work during the Covid-19 pandemic: a study of the gendered division of domestic responsibilities during lockdown. J Gend Stud 30(4):429–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1863202

Branicki LJ (2020) COVID-19, ethics of care and feminist crisis management. Gender Work Organiz 27(5):872–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12491

Camilletti E, Nesbitt-Ahmed Z (2022) COVID-19 and a 'crisis of care': a feminist analysis of public policy responses to paid and unpaid care and domestic work. Int Labour Rev 161(2):195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12354

Carneiro S (2018) Gênero e raça na sociedade brasileira. In: Carneiro PS (ed) Escritos de uma vida. Letramento, Belo Horizonte, pp 153–186

Castro MG (1992) Alquimia de categorias sociais na produção dos sujeitos políticos: gênero, raça e geração entre líderes do sindicato de trabalhadores domésticos em Salvador. Estudos Feministas (0):57–73

Dlamini NJ (2021) Gender-based violence, twin pandemic to COVID-19. Crit Sociol 47(4–5):583–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520975465

Federici S (2004) Caliban and the witch: women, the body and primitive accumulation, 1st edn. Autonomedia, New York

Federici S (2012) Revolution at point zero: housework, reproduction and feminist struggle. Common Notions Brooklyn, New York

Fortier N (2020) Covid-19, gender inequality, and the responsibility of the state. Int J Wellbeing 10(3):77–93

Fraser N (2016) Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Rev 100:99–117

Gonzalez L (1984) Racismo e Sexismo na Cultura Brasileira. In: Revista Ciências Sociais Hoje. ANPOCS, pp 223–244

Hirata H, Kergoat D (1994) A classe operária tem dois sexos. Estudos Feministas 2(1):93–100

ILO (2013) Domestic workers across the world: global and regional statistics and the extent of legal protection. ILO, Geneva

ILO (2021) Making decent work a reality for domestic workers: Progress and prospects ten years after the adoption of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). ILO, Geneva

Inter-American Development Bank (2020) What is the labor market like for women in Latin America and the Caribbean?. IDB. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/viewer/What-is-The-Labor-Market-like-for-Women-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf

Lewis H (2020, 19 March) The Coronavirus is a disaster for feminism: pandemics affect men and women differently. The Atlantic

Mies M (2014) Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: women in the International Division of labour. Zed Books, London

Book   Google Scholar  

OECD (2020) Women at the core of the fight against COVID-19 crisis. OECD, Paris

Pateman C (1988) The sexual contract. Polity, Cambridge

Perrons D (2010) Gender, work and ‘market’ values. Renewal J Lab Polit 18(1/2):34–42

Pinto CP (2021) Organização sindical no 'novo normal': informar, mobilizar e empoderar as trabalhadoras domésticas. In: Pinto PCP et al (eds) Os sindicatos das trabalhadoras domésticas em tempos de pandemia: memórias da resistência. FACOS - UFSM, Santa Maria, pp 142–160

Ryan NE, El Ayadi A (2020) A call for a gender-responsive, intersectional approach to address Covid-19. Glob Public Health 15(9):1404–1412

Saffioti H (1969) A mulher na sociedade de classes (mito e realidade). Quatro Artes, São Paulo

UN Women (2020) From insight to action. UN Women, New York. https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2020/gender-equality-in-the-wake-of-covid-2019-en.pdf?la=en&vs=5142

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Gender and Disaster, University College London, London, UK

Louisa Acciari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louisa Acciari .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

International Relations Institute, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

Thiago Gehre Galvao

Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil

Henrique Zeferino de Menezes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Acciari, L. (2024). Labour, Gender Inequalities and the SDGs: Why Is Decent Work a Gendered Question?. In: Galvao, T.G., de Menezes, H.Z. (eds) The Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9_11

Published : 23 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-59278-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-59279-9

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home » Business

By Tshehla Cornelius Koteli

Digital Business Writer

5 minute read

20 Aug 2024

Gender inequality: More females needed in the business world

The key is to addressing gender inequality is by helping women understand their femininity and how much of a strength it is..

Even after years of making effort in addressing gender inequality, less women are still found in the business world . Picture: iStock

Efforts have been made in the world to ensure there is gender equality. However, in many parts, women are still battling to be seen as equal to men.

In South Africa, more women are unemployed than men.

Chief Executive at Liberty Two Degrees Amelia Beattie says investing in women empowerment would be a great benefit for women and society.

The key to addressing gender inequality is helping women understand their femininity and how much of a strength it is.

The voice of women in business

Carol Mazaka, Head of 1Life Customer Service, says women have been viewed as an inconvenience in the business space for a greater period of history.

Macufe cancelled again, despite three-year tender invitation

A woman’s feminine traits and attributes benefit every space they work in, she says.

“They also make a wonderful addition to any setting.”

She says a gender-diverse corporate culture has helped many companies create a balance between voices, representation, and diversity of thought that is needed to meet unique business needs.

“From being generational wealth builders, heads of households, and lucrative leaders in business, this understanding of women in society has also been at the heart of our efforts to foster an inclusive workplace for men and women alike,” she adds.

ALSO READ: Here’s why women battle in business

Gender inequality remains

Ignatius Sehoole, CEO of KPMG in Southern Africa and Africa Chairman acknowledges that there have previously been efforts made in some organisations to address gender inequality, however, the issue is still present .

He says the findings of the 2023 Gender Based Violence (GBV) research by The University of Johannesburg (UJ), in partnership with KPMG South Africa and the Shared Value Africa Initiative (SVAI) are concerning.

The research also touches on how the work environment is structured for both men and women.

“According to the report, women earn only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn for the same work, globally – setting them back tremendously, in comparison to their male counterparts – from an economic growth perspective.”

Sehoole adds that gender equality is a basic human right and a crucial element in reducing poverty and fostering sustainable economic growth.

He believes another way in which gender inequality can be addressed is through multisectoral collaboration, whereby there will be an effective coordination among various stakeholders such as governments, NGOs, civil society, academia, and the private sector, which are necessary to collectively reach a beneficial result.

ALSO READ: Beyond headlines: The woes of being a woman

Start them from a young age to address gender inequality

Beattie believes girls must be nurtured from a young age to believe they can take space which was previously dominated by men .

“In 2024, we must continue to make a deliberate effort to identify talent, mentor, sponsor, and advance women all around us, every day.”

Mara Glennie, founder of TEARS Foundation believes women must always remember that they have a voice and that they are being heard and seen.

She says it is important for women and the youth to navigate the world with access to necessary information and support.

“We are confident that through comprehensive, age-appropriate educational programs, and partnerships with public and private sectors – collectively as a society, we can create a society that empowers, enables and protects women as the economic and community treasures they are,” adds Glennie.

More women unemployed in SA

The recent employment statistics by Stats SA revealed that women continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of unemployment, underemployment and lower workforce participation compared to men.

The data shows a general increase in labour force participation rates for men and women between the second quarter of 2014 and the second quarter of 2024.

Stats SA says this increase was more substantial for women, increasing to 55.8% in 2024 from 50,9% in 2014 (up by 4,9%), indicating a narrowing of the gender gap in labour force participation.

NOW READ: SA women and young anxious about finances

Read more on these topics

For more news your way.

Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.

EDITOR'S CHOICE

Download The Citizen App for IOS and Android

Click here to get The Citizen news and updates on Whatsapp.

Newsletters

Do not miss a single story. Get all the latest news in your inbox.

RELATED ARTICLES

Polokwane mayor’s cost-cutting plan angers businesses

Man found guilty of killing his girlfriend

Cop shoots pregnant ex-wife in stomach, killing her and baby

• Share full article

Advertisement

Barack Obama’s Speech Was a Reminder of the Possible

By Charles M. Blow

Opinion Columnist

The reservoir of good will for Barack Obama is deep in the Democratic Party.

He was the embodiment of a moment when people were invested in the ideas of hope and change, believing that he represented an inexorable evolution of the country toward a more egalitarian tomorrow.

And on Tuesday night he attempted to resurrect that feeling, to make people remember the time and place that the lightning had struck, to make them believe that Kamala Harris was in many ways a continuation of, and a natural heir to, his legacy and mantle.

As the former first lady Michelle Obama said before her husband took the stage, “America, hope is making a comeback.”

Indeed, Obama was still proselytizing a form of rainbow-ism that the Trump years proved is not a natural, inevitable progression for America, but is instead a defense against an endemic part of America.

America is near a fracture, and electing Harris may be the only way to prevent it.

In his speech, Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, in which Lincoln counseled Americans not to let passionate disagreement “break our bonds of affection.” Obama quoted it as if it were about idealized unity.

In fact, Lincoln’s address was an attempt to appease Southern enslavers, an effort that ultimately failed, thrusting the country into the Civil War.

Obama was accidentally prescient here, if anything he does is truly accidental. The situation in the country is just as tenuous now as it was when Lincoln spoke those words, and the opponents of equality and progress are just as strident.

Harris has come into that doom circle not selling Obama-era hope but a close cousin of it: joy. She is directing her campaign to the half of an electorate traumatized by Donald Trump and dreading the possibility of his return.

Harris is selling joy as an antidote to despair. She is selling optimism to Democrats who had fallen so deeply into a depression, and for so long that they could no longer fully appreciate the magnitude of their own sorrow.

Hope is an investment in the future; joy is a payout in the now.

Many of us will never forget what Obama meant to the country, how important and transformative his presidency was, not just in policy but as a radical alteration of the image of power, efficacy and excellence.

But the Obama era existed in a moment in time, and it cannot be recalled at will, no matter how much he and others may wish it so. This is a new day, a new era, a Kamala Harris era, and she was meant for her own moment on her own terms.

In this era, it’s not so much about the audacity of hope as it is about a radical insistence on joy.

Charles M. Blow is an Opinion columnist for The New York Times, writing about national politics, public opinion and social justice, with a focus on racial equality and L.G.B.T.Q. rights. @ CharlesMBlow • Facebook

Accelerating progress on gender equality is key for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

A high-level event at the united nations discusses un women’s gender equality accelerators to drive collective action..

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to E-mail

On the occasion of the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on July 15, 2024, UN Women convened feminists, experts, UN officials and other key development actors to present and discuss the Gender Equality Accelerators (GEAs) for the SDGs, particularly SDG 5. The Accelerators are solutions to drive focused, collective action to speed and scale up results for women and girls.

In her video message, Sima Bahous , Executive Director of UN Women, reiterated the relevance of the Beijing Platform for Action and highlighted the stark reality presented in the 2023 SDG Gender Snapshot report. Despite global efforts, the world is lagging in achieving gender equality. She shared key data points illustrating the slow progress in women's participation in decision-making, economic insecurity, and ongoing violence against women.

“Economic insecurity continues to be a great concern,” she said. “Despite the global unemployment rate hitting a historic low of 5 per cent in 2023, women continue to face higher unemployment rates than men. Women continue to carry the responsibility of unpaid domestic and care work, spending 2.5 times more hours a day on this.”

Michelle Bachelet , former President of Chile, former Executive Director of UN Women, and former United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, reminded us in her keynote speech that "the importance of achieving gender equality has no parallel. Our world will not accomplish its full potential if we don't harness all that we can contribute with our ideas, vision, and experience. ”

Participants acknowledged that neglecting SDG 5 (Gender Equality) endangers the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and rallied around the need for collective action. “The Ten Gender Equality Accelerators are vital markers for progress, ensuring focus and accountability in our efforts through the remainder of the decade,” said the President of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations, Ambassador Paula Narváez .

Ten Gender Equality Accelerators

From increasing women’s equal participation in decision-making to supporting countries in improving the production and use of gender data, , the GEAs aim to address the most pressing challenges in realizing the human rights of all women and girls and achieving gender equality across the SDGs. They are evidence-based programmatic frameworks that translate international guidance on gender equality into local initiatives.

The accelerators are built on successful joint programmes with UN partners and tested approaches offered to the Resident Coordinator system and UN Country Teams for collective action. In her intervention,  UN WomenDeputy Executive Director Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda stressed that, "we must leverage existing and new partnerships with UN organizations, national governments, civil society, local women's rights organizations, and the private sector to work together and focus on systems change."

Focusing on the Transforming Care Systems Accelerator, a fireside chat engaged participants in a discussion on the innovative solutions and collaborative efforts needed to turn  goals into reality. "Transforming care systems is essential for building resilience to crises and achieving gender equality," said Cynthia Samuel-Olonjuwon , ILO Special Representative to the UN. Referring to the relevance of the Transforming Care System Accelerator, she emphasized that, "by supporting workers with family responsibilities and ensuring quality care, we can advance social justice and decent work for all in the recognition that care work, paid or unpaid, is essential to all other work."

Hugo Allan García , Subsecretary of Planning of Guatemala shared that his country has included a gender equality approach into its national planning system, adding that, “this approach serves as an analytical criterion and methodological tool to understand the power dynamics and gender gaps in the access to goods and services, exercising rights, participation and equal opportunities for all."

Looking ahead, the Call to Action is clear. Achieving gender equality and women's rights demands strategic and coordinated action. All are invited to use the GEAs to step up collective efforts and drive progress across the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

For more information, please read our Gender Equality Accelerators booklet and brochure available on UN Women’s website.

• Generation Equality
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Gender equality and women’s empowerment

Related content

Women in Afghanistan have not stopped striving for their rights, and neither should we

Interview with Hawa Yokie on youth-led innovation in Sierra Leone

From World Champion to leading the way for female track coaches in the Paris 2024 Olympics – Interview with Janeth Jepkosgei