gender inequality at workplace in india research paper

Gender issues in India: an amalgamation of research

Subscribe to global connection, shamika ravi and shamika ravi former brookings expert, economic advisory council member to the prime minister and secretary - government of india nirupama jayaraman nj nirupama jayaraman.

March 10, 2017

Content from the Brookings Institution India Center is now archived . After seven years of an impactful partnership, as of September 11, 2020, Brookings India is now the Centre for Social and Economic Progress , an independent public policy institution based in India.

The views are of the author(s).

Forty-two years have passed since the United Nations first decided to commemorate March 8 th as International Women’s Day, marking a historical transition in the feminist movement. Gender remains a critically important and largely ignored lens to view development issues across the world. On this past occasion of International Women’s Day 2017, here is an amalgamation of gendered learning outcomes across various crucial themes for public policy in India, emerging from Brookings India’s past research on political economy, financial inclusion and health.

Political Economy

In 2016, India ranked 130 out of 146 in the Gender Inequality Index released by the UNDP. It is evident that a stronger turn in political discourse is required, taking into consideration both public and private spaces. The normalization of intra-household violence is a huge detriment to the welfare of women. Crimes against women have doubled in the period between 1991 and 2011. NFHS data reports that 37 per cent of married women in India have experienced physical or sexual violence by a spouse while 40 per cent have experienced physical, sexual or emotional violence by a spouse. While current policy discourse recommends employment as a form of empowerment for women, data presents a disturbing correlation between female participation in labour force and their exposure to domestic violence. The NFHS-3 reports that women employed at any time in the past 12 months have a much higher prevalence of violence (39-40 per cent) than women who were not employed (29 per cent). The researchers advocate a multi-faceted approach to women’s empowerment beyond mere labour force participation, taking into consideration extra-household bargaining power.

Read more at: “ Beginning a new conversation on Women ”.

Gender inequality extends across various facets of society. Political participation is often perceived as a key factor to rectify this situation. However, gender bias extends to electoral politics and representative governance as well. The relative difference between male and female voters is the key to understanding gender inequality in politics. While the female voter turnout has been steadily increasing, the number of female candidates fielded by parties has not increased. More women contest as independents, which does not provide the cover for extraneous costs otherwise available when they are part of a political party.

However, women also act as agents of political change for other women. In the Bihar elections in 2005, when re-elections were held, the percentage of female voters had increased from 42.5 to 44.5 per cent while those of male voters declined from 50 to 47 per cent in the interim period of eight months. As a direct result, 37 per cent of the constituencies saw anti-incumbency voting. The average growth rate of women voters was nearly three times in those constituencies where there was a difference in the winning party. District-wise disaggregation of voter registration also supports this hypothesis in the case of Bihar indicating the percolation of the winds of change. This illustration proves that women are no longer under the complete control of the men in their family in terms of electoral participation. The situation is only bound to improve from here. With the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), vulnerable sections like women now have more freedom of choice in their vote. Further, poll related incidents of violence against women have significantly decreased since the phased introduction of EVMs across multi-level elections in India.

Disparity in Gender Equality at Workplace in India

Gender inequality is the concept explaining the unequal treatment between males and the female counterpart. The global HDI for females is 5.90% lesser than the male counterpart. South Asian region has the highest disparity in HDI of women to men with women HDI's being 16.30% lower. 25% of business entities across the globe representing a quarter of entire business industry are operating without any women in the top management position. This research aims to evaluate the gender biasness prevailing at the workspace in India with emphasis on the corporate and the SME's sector. Further a collation of a comprehensive dossier providing possible corrective measures has been made. The research methodology entails participatory observation coalesced with active research. The research findings provide that wide gender disparity exists in the Indian industry. Conceivable reforms have been suggested for adoption at workplace so as to bridge the gender inequality gap.

Related Papers

Space and Culture, India, ACCB

Journal Space and Culture, India Open access Journal

Studies on gender diversities have always converged on the predicament of women in every field of life which requires much attention and compassion. There is, in fact, a broad domain of issues which need directions and resolutions in order to battle off the stereotypes and prejudices against woman especially at male-dominated fields. The workplace is one of them. Women at work-places worldwide, as researches detail, face numerous obstacles and barriers most typical being the gender biased barrier that restrict them to climb the ladder of success and height. The context in India is as much the same or worse. Discouragement, stereotyping, inequality are few of the many barriers, women face every day at Indian workplaces. Although the working patterns, sharing time with authorities, allotment of roles, among men and women do not differ still men are promoted. Men at workplaces are not affected by the hardships faced by the women as Indian culture is deeply rooted with a stereotyped mindset towards women. The concept of marriage, maternity and family obligations is assumed to be women’s only eminence and hence, considered to be one of the most significant barriers in contributing to organisational success. Neither family nor organisations support women to elevate their position, status and dignity at workplaces. This paper explores the theory of gender and gender discrimination at workplaces in the Indian context. The paper also delves into the types of gender barriers at workplaces in the Indian scenario that puts women into complicated situations. Further, the paper explores the battling techniques to break the gender barrier through competencies and essential skills.

Dr. KSS Kanhaiya

IOSR Journals

The inclusion of gender diversity in workplace is a pretty well-accepted fact now. Having a diverse workforce is increasingly being recognised as instrumental in improving the firm's performance-as it adds both tangible and intangible value in terms of successful working of the organisation.While most Indian organisations on one hand are acknowledging the crucial role a diverse workforce plays in a thriving, growth-oriented business, its stakeholders, and the community it operates in. On the other hand, the statistics are still dismal when it comes to critical parameters such as the gender ratio in important roles where inclusion initiatives are lost in events and other showcasing activities, with little reaching the final and most critical stage of execution. This paper aims to present the concept of gender inclusivity at workplace while reflecting on issues associated with it. It aims to present the non economic dilemmas that are holding women and trans back in creating gender inclusive work place among Indian Organisations. Finally the paper presents the various policies adopted by the Indian organisations over the years to bridge this inclusivity gap.

Innovative Publication

IP Innovative Publication Pvt. Ltd.

The working class population in Indian society has been largely centred on the male members of the group. Being dominantly patriarchal in nature, Indian social systems promote the ascendancy of the male over the female in all spheres of personal and professional life and the working class environment has traditionally been no exception to this rule. Women, both married and unmarried, have been confined to homes while men have gone to factories and institutions to earn a means of sustenance for the entire family. As a result, the structures in the workplace have also remained constant with men dealing with men in most factories. This paper examines the manner in which a certain alteration in the gender ratio of an organisation can bring about positive change in terms of productivity, behaviours, attitudes and efficiency on the shop floor. This paper studies one manufacturing organisation in the Malwa region in the state of Madhya Pradesh in India to highlight these changes through the manner in which the organisation implements this change.

Anitha Mary Mathew

Research on gender inequalities and discrimination in workplace has put forward the struggle women and men face in vocational life. Previous studies suggested gender discrimination in western countries and thus does not give a proper understanding about the workplace discrimination faced by women in India. By investigating an arrangement of authentic work settings, the assessment sheds light on the social underpinnings and auxiliary settings in which abusive exercises occur. Past examinations explored the difficulties faced by the employees in their vocational life with regard to their gender and the type of discrimination they faced in their work place like detachment from social groups in their work place environment.

isara solutions

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

The paper basically investigates the contexts related to gender equality particularly in India. It aims at investigating the causes that leads to such inequality at workplace and resultant forms of discrimination. The paper also tries to evaluate these causes and propose strategies to overcome barriers of inequality. The factors are broadly categorised into individual, organisational and socio-cultural dimensions. As per the review undertaken several strategies like gender mainstreaming, involvement in decision making, participation in unions can be adopted to bring in more equality within organisations.

Publishing India Group

Gender discrimination is an unspoken reality for Indian women and it extends to the workplace. It limits the true potential of the female workforce and the growth of the nation, besides adversely affecting women's health and engagement at the workplace. The study emphasizes the need to understand and dismantle gender discrimination as there is a strong economic and welfare rationale for doing so. Gender is viewed from a social identity perspective and thus, the role of gender identity in the perception of gender discrimination at work is examined for 65 female employees at work. Significant correlations were observed between three out of four dimensions of gender identity and gender discrimination. Multiple regression results indicated that the four dimensions of gender identity together explain 41% variance in the perception of gender discrimination. The model reflected a good fit and can be expected to generalize the findings well on the population. The study highlights the importance of gender identity in the perception of gender discrimination at work and shows that various dimensions of gender identity can impact gender discrimination differently. Managerial implications of the same are also discussed and development of gender and identity related interventions is advised to tackle gender discrimination in a positive way at the workplace.

Neha Mubeen

In the year 1964, in order to prevent gender discrimination in the workplace, the American Civil Rights Act came up with Title VII to interdict workplace discrimination based upon sex, race, religion and nationality (Neumark and Stock: 2006). With this title, there was a sharp increase in women employees in corporate organizations for the next few years, and gender discrimination was thought to have been dealt with. However, today, almost 52 years after, women still make up only 19% of C-Suite Executives, according to global standards. Women's projects just have half the budgets assigned to men's projects. Women get paid only a portion of what the average male employee makes, despite having the exact same qualities and qualifications. 90% of all women who leave their job actually leave because of workplace issues like frustration over projects, inadequate pay and unsatisfactorily long work hours (Harvard Business Review: 2013). Gender discrimination is still very prevalent in workplaces, and this essay aims to show how the vast wage gap between the male and female employees is both the root cause and consequence of perpetuating the notion of gender inequality in professional spheres.

Health Psychology Report

gopa bhardwaj

IJESRT Journal

Gender equality in the workplace has been a major concern for almost all the organizations and countries. Even in most developed countries we cannot find complete gender equality in true sense. This paper aims to discuss whether there is gender biasness in organizations or not? Gender biasness is considered as a major constraint towards the development process in any of the country and thus we have made an attempt to determine the root causes for gender gap that persists in our society. Also considering gender in the office is vital to encourage productive office environment and create a space that ensures both genders thrive. Jennifer Berdahl explains "Women tend to prefer egalitarian norms in work groups, whereas men favor hierarchical structures," in a study published in the journal Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice. We have tried to investigate the differences on certain parameters like perception towards work and colleagues, workplace environment, satisfaction levels, salaries etc. Under the study, we have highlighted some basic causes of gender disparity against women including ignorance of female at higher positions, maternity leaves, lack of opportunities for promotion and so forth. We, therefore, have provided some policy implications for further improvement of the gender situation in the country

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Barbara Hanusa

Yin- Chen Chang

Joan Arimany Juventeny

Arthroscopy Techniques

Vipul Mandalia

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)

Ali ElDesouky

Rational Suicide, Irrational Laws

Susan Stefan

Revista Veterinaria

Maria Judis

Industrial Crops and Products

Anca Anastasiu

Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin

maruf ahmed

Sefa Yiğit Kurt

Journal of Parasitology Research

Afra Khosravi

Edyta Sierka

Agricultural and Food Science

Michael Finell

Mustafa Adıbatmaz

Edward Rock

Royal Society Open Science

Adriana López-Arbarello

Ciencia Ergo …

ROBERTO BANDERAS

Maissa Rayyan

Indian Fern Journal

Thekkekara Suresh Gayathri , Kalathil Sethumadhavan Abhilash

OJS på dansk

Niels Erik Frederiksen

Dr. PARVATHY VENU M

Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine

Nurfadhlina Musa

Desalination and Water Treatment

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.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01400-g001.jpg

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 ]

+91 99248 97691
[email protected]

Gender Inequality and Harassment at Workplace (Paper)

Knowledge Bank
Shreya S Palely, Christ University Bangalore
January 21, 2021

Interview with Ann Mary Biju, Convener, Legal Aid Society, University of Delhi

Internship Experience with NGO - Shifta Amrin, Jamia Hamdard

Internship Experience with NCPCR – Ayush Dumka, SLFJPS, NFSU, Gandhinagar

Internship Experience with NGO – Devesh Khandelwal, Parul Institute of Law

Internship Experience of C M Vaishnavi, Student of Parul Institute of Law, Vadodara with Chittoor District Legal Services Authority, AP

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Gender pay gap in U.S. hasn’t changed much in two decades

The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 20 years or so. In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. These results are similar to where the pay gap stood in 2002, when women earned 80% as much as men.

A chart showing that the Gender pay gap in the U.S. has not closed in recent years, but is narrower among young workers

As has long been the case, the wage gap is smaller for workers ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older. In 2022, women ages 25 to 34 earned an average of 92 cents for every dollar earned by a man in the same age group – an 8-cent gap. By comparison, the gender pay gap among workers of all ages that year was 18 cents.

While the gender pay gap has not changed much in the last two decades, it has narrowed considerably when looking at the longer term, both among all workers ages 16 and older and among those ages 25 to 34. The estimated 18-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2022 was down from 35 cents in 1982. And the 8-cent gap among workers ages 25 to 34 in 2022 was down from a 26-cent gap four decades earlier.

The gender pay gap measures the difference in median hourly earnings between men and women who work full or part time in the United States. Pew Research Center’s estimate of the pay gap is based on an analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) monthly outgoing rotation group files ( IPUMS ) from January 1982 to December 2022, combined to create annual files. To understand how we calculate the gender pay gap, read our 2013 post, “How Pew Research Center measured the gender pay gap.”

The COVID-19 outbreak affected data collection efforts by the U.S. government in its surveys, especially in 2020 and 2021, limiting in-person data collection and affecting response rates. It is possible that some measures of economic outcomes and how they vary across demographic groups are affected by these changes in data collection.

In addition to findings about the gender wage gap, this analysis includes information from a Pew Research Center survey about the perceived reasons for the pay gap, as well as the pressures and career goals of U.S. men and women. The survey was conducted among 5,098 adults and includes a subset of questions asked only for 2,048 adults who are employed part time or full time, from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

The U.S. Census Bureau has also analyzed the gender pay gap, though its analysis looks only at full-time workers (as opposed to full- and part-time workers). In 2021, full-time, year-round working women earned 84% of what their male counterparts earned, on average, according to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis.

Much of the gender pay gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap over the long term is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions.

Related: The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap

Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to be overrepresented in lower-paying occupations relative to their share of the workforce. This may contribute to gender differences in pay.

Other factors that are difficult to measure, including gender discrimination, may also contribute to the ongoing wage discrepancy.

Perceived reasons for the gender wage gap

A bar chart showing that Half of U.S. adults say women being treated differently by employers is a major reason for the gender wage gap

When asked about the factors that may play a role in the gender wage gap, half of U.S. adults point to women being treated differently by employers as a major reason, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2022. Smaller shares point to women making different choices about how to balance work and family (42%) and working in jobs that pay less (34%).

There are some notable differences between men and women in views of what’s behind the gender wage gap. Women are much more likely than men (61% vs. 37%) to say a major reason for the gap is that employers treat women differently. And while 45% of women say a major factor is that women make different choices about how to balance work and family, men are slightly less likely to hold that view (40% say this).

Parents with children younger than 18 in the household are more likely than those who don’t have young kids at home (48% vs. 40%) to say a major reason for the pay gap is the choices that women make about how to balance family and work. On this question, differences by parental status are evident among both men and women.

Views about reasons for the gender wage gap also differ by party. About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (68%) say a major factor behind wage differences is that employers treat women differently, but far fewer Republicans and Republican leaners (30%) say the same. Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say women’s choices about how to balance family and work (50% vs. 36%) and their tendency to work in jobs that pay less (39% vs. 30%) are major reasons why women earn less than men.

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts in the same party to say a major reason for the gender wage gap is that employers treat women differently. About three-quarters of Democratic women (76%) say this, compared with 59% of Democratic men. And while 43% of Republican women say unequal treatment by employers is a major reason for the gender wage gap, just 18% of GOP men share that view.

Pressures facing working women and men

Family caregiving responsibilities bring different pressures for working women and men, and research has shown that being a mother can reduce women’s earnings , while fatherhood can increase men’s earnings .

A chart showing that about two-thirds of U.S. working mothers feel a great deal of pressure to focus on responsibilities at home

Employed women and men are about equally likely to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially and to be successful in their jobs and careers, according to the Center’s October survey. But women, and particularly working mothers, are more likely than men to say they feel a great deal of pressure to focus on responsibilities at home.

About half of employed women (48%) report feeling a great deal of pressure to focus on their responsibilities at home, compared with 35% of employed men. Among working mothers with children younger than 18 in the household, two-thirds (67%) say the same, compared with 45% of working dads.

When it comes to supporting their family financially, similar shares of working moms and dads (57% vs. 62%) report they feel a great deal of pressure, but this is driven mainly by the large share of unmarried working mothers who say they feel a great deal of pressure in this regard (77%). Among those who are married, working dads are far more likely than working moms (60% vs. 43%) to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially. (There were not enough unmarried working fathers in the sample to analyze separately.)

About four-in-ten working parents say they feel a great deal of pressure to be successful at their job or career. These findings don’t differ by gender.

Gender differences in job roles, aspirations

A bar chart showing that women in the U.S. are more likely than men to say they're not the boss at their job - and don't want to be in the future

Overall, a quarter of employed U.S. adults say they are currently the boss or one of the top managers where they work, according to the Center’s survey. Another 33% say they are not currently the boss but would like to be in the future, while 41% are not and do not aspire to be the boss or one of the top managers.

Men are more likely than women to be a boss or a top manager where they work (28% vs. 21%). This is especially the case among employed fathers, 35% of whom say they are the boss or one of the top managers where they work. (The varying attitudes between fathers and men without children at least partly reflect differences in marital status and educational attainment between the two groups.)

In addition to being less likely than men to say they are currently the boss or a top manager at work, women are also more likely to say they wouldn’t want to be in this type of position in the future. More than four-in-ten employed women (46%) say this, compared with 37% of men. Similar shares of men (35%) and women (31%) say they are not currently the boss but would like to be one day. These patterns are similar among parents.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on March 22, 2019. Anna Brown and former Pew Research Center writer/editor Amanda Barroso contributed to an earlier version of this analysis. Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

What is the gender wage gap in your metropolitan area? Find out with our pay gap calculator

Gender & Work
Gender Equality & Discrimination
Gender Pay Gap
Gender Roles

Carolina Aragão is a research associate focusing on social and demographic trends at Pew Research Center

Women have gained ground in the nation’s highest-paying occupations, but still lag behind men

Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, the enduring grip of the gender pay gap, more than twice as many americans support than oppose the #metoo movement, women now outnumber men in the u.s. college-educated labor force, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

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

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

IMAGES

Gender Inequality Paper
Gender Inequality and Women in the Workplace
Gender Inequality Research Paper Example
(PDF) Gender Inequality at the Workplace
(PDF) The State of Gender Inequality in India
(PDF) The State of Gender Inequality in India

VIDEO

Gender inequality in India
Engendering Inclusion: A Perspective on Women’s Health, Employment, and Hygiene
Can india have gender neutral judiciary?| Justice B V Nagarathna
Gender Inequality Index
India and G20: Key Performance Indicators Show Dismal Gender Inequality in Jobs
Gender inequality and Issues. || JKSSB Female Supervisor Online Batch Demo Class

COMMENTS

Gender Inequality in India: A Comprehensive Analysis and Implications for Sustainable Development
The research a rticle has provided a comprehensive analysis of gender inequality in India, highlighting its causes, manifestations, and consequences. Gender i nequality in India is deeply rooted ...
PDF Disparity in Gender Equality at Workplace in India
The primary research objectives of this research paper are: To evaluate the quantitative aspect of gender inequality at workplace in India; To evaluate the methodologies that can be implemented for protection and promotion of interests of the female workforce at the workplace.
Gender Pay Gap in India: A Reality and the Way Forward—An Empirical
Gender studies have attracted researchers for a long time and there is a steady stream of publications spanning diverse areas such as gender pay gap (Blau & Kahn, 2017), female participation in the workplace (Atal et al., 2019), under-representation of women in leadership positions (Kandola, 2004), assessing contribution of women on corporate boards (Kim & Starks, 2016), second career of women ...
Disparity in Gender Equality at Workplace in India
Abstract. Gender inequality is the concept explaining the unequal treatment between males and the female counterpart. The global HDI for females is 5.90% lesser than the male counterpart. South ...
(PDF) Gender inequalities at workplace
The paper discusses of the causes and consequences of the problems as well the policies and measures to reduce gender inequality in India. Discover the world's research 25+ million members
Gender Inequality Issues in India
The Problem. India struggles with gender inequality issues beyond just equal economic growth and access to educational resource opportunities. Gender inequality exists in the form of socially constructed, predefined gender roles firmly anchored in India's sociocultural fabric that has deep cultural and historical roots.
PDF Gender Inequality in India: Tracing Its Origins, Examining Its Outcomes
Gender inequality remains a deeply rooted and pervasive issue in India, casting a long shadow over its development. This study, titled "Gender Inequality in India: Origins, Outcomes, and a Path Forward," aims to dissect the factors contributing to this challenge, assess its consequences, and offer a roadmap for a more equitable future.
PDF Gender inequality and habitus at the indian workplace
The purpose of this research work is to explore the relationship between gender inequalities and habitus within the workplaces of Delhi, India. This work delves into the subject areas of gender, inequality, organisation culture and sexual harassment by using Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and fields.
PDF Macroeconomic Impacts of Gender Inequality and Informality in India; by
to quarterly data from India. The key contribution of this paper is to link the issue of gender inequality to informality within a uniﬁed theoretical framework. In addition, in contrast to the existing literature, which has largely focused on long run outcomes alone, we are instead able to capture the short run effects of policy as well.
Gender discrimination with women employees at workplace in India
This paper also analysis the laws related to gender justice in India. Keywords: Gender discrimination, equality, workplace, employment, legal protection 1 1 Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, School of Social Sciences, DAVV Indore E mail- [email protected] Introduction The word "gender" is used to describe those ...
Gender issues in India: an amalgamation of research
Political Economy . In 2016, India ranked 130 out of 146 in the Gender Inequality Index released by the UNDP. It is evident that a stronger turn in political discourse is required, taking into ...
PDF Gender Inequality & Workplace Harassment Of Women In India
To study the current & past situation of gender difference in India. To highlight the problem of workplace harassment of working women's in India. To analyze the current situation of gender inequality & workplace harassment in the country. Research Methodology: This study is based on descriptive research. Primary data is collected
Disparity in Gender Equality at Workplace in India
2019. Gender inequality is the concept explaining the unequal treatment between males and the female counterpart. The global HDI for females is 5.90% lesser than the male counterpart. South Asian region has the highest disparity in HDI of women to men with women HDI's being 16.30% lower. 25% of business entities across the globe representing a ...
Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational
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 Roots of Gender Inequality in India by D. Amutha :: SSRN
As per UNDP report, India ranks 132 out of 187 countries on gender inequality index (GII). India ranks low partly because of its skewed ratio, with only 914 females for every 1000 males, according to Indian government data. As per UNDP report, only 29% of Indian women above the age of 15 in 2011 were part of labour force, as compared to 80.7% men.
(PDF) "GENDER INEQUALITY IN INDIA"
PJAEE, 17 (9) (2020) 131. "GENDER INEQUALITY IN INDIA". Dr. Raju. V 1, Dr.Nagaraju Kilari2, Dr.S.Vinay Kumar3. 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Kristu Jayanti College, Bangalore ...
Gender equality in the workplace: An introduction.
SCIENTIFIC The special section that we have assembled includes 10 papers that address some aspects related to gender inequities in the workplace. Specifically, these papers address (a) gender bias in winning prestigious awards in neuroscience, (b) supporting women in STEM, (c) women's concerns about potential sexism, (d) unique challenges faced by STEM faculty, (e) the double jeopardy of ...
PDF A Study of Gender Inequality in India
A Study of Gender Inequality in India Priti Jha1, Niti Nagar2 ... problem in India. So, this paper highlights the multi-dimensional context of gender inequalities ... Chaudhary, & Sarkar, D. (2012), has tried to find out some factors i.e. educational status, work participation, level of gender inequality, of the Cooch Behar, a district of West ...
PDF Research Paper Gender Inequality in India: Ancient and Modern Analysis
Research Paper Gender Inequality in India: Ancient and Modern Analysis Bhavika Mehta (B.A.LLB, Army Institute of Law, Mohali, India) ABSTRACT: Gender equality is a human right, but women and men continue to have unequal access to opportunities and decision-making authority in our world.
PDF Gender inequality & workplace harassment of women in India
This paper discusses the Gender Inequaly & Workplace Harassment of Women in India. Barely a person feel that the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibion and Redressal) Act, 2013 is been so val and powerful to the working ladies and the working environment especially in sector, finding a way or solution for punishing such
Who Actually Governs? Gender Inequality and ...
Gender Inequality and Political Representation in Rural India" by Alyssa Heinze et al. ... Skip to search form Skip to main content Skip to account menu. Semantic Scholar's Logo. Search 217,983,567 papers from all fields of science. Search. Sign In Create Free Account. DOI: 10.1086/730746;
Gender inequality in the work environment: A study of private research
Although gender inequality has a similar manifestation in other contexts, some scholars argue that it is India's cultural and social norms that perpetuate gender inequalities there (Gupta 2017 ...
Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search ...
In Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that the degree of gender inequality within a society would predict a pattern of gender disparity in internet search output. To do so, we first obtained an open-source dataset known as the Global Gender Gap Index [GGGI ], containing rankings of gender inequality for 153 countries. The GGGI represents the ...
Gender Inequality and Harassment at Workplace (Paper)
Gender Inequality and Harassment at Workplace (Paper) ... This paper also includes the authors research done through the help of questionnaire of the rural areas of Belthangady, Laila and Mangaluru, place in Karnataka which talks about the discrimination on women workers in various ways. ... Gujarat, India. Phone : +91 99248 97691. info@probono ...
Gender Inequality and Workplace Organizations: Understanding
Abstract. The modern workplace is a pivotal arena for shaping societal gender inequalities. This chapter reviews theory and research on gender inequality in workplace organizations. We first ...
Gender pay gap remained stable over past 20 years in US
The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 20 years or so. In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. These results are similar to where the pay gap stood in 2002, when women earned 80% as much as men.