gender inequality assignment

12.2 Gender and Gender Inequality

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Explain the influence of socialization on gender roles in the United States
• Explain the stratification of gender in major American institutions
• Provide examples of gender inequality in the United States
• Describe the rise of feminism in the United States
• Describe gender from the view of each sociological perspective

Gender and Socialization

The phrase “boys will be boys” is often used to justify behavior such as pushing, shoving, or other forms of aggression from young boys. The phrase implies that such behavior is unchangeable and something that is part of a boy’s nature. Aggressive behavior, when it does not inflict significant harm, is often accepted from boys and men because it is congruent with the cultural script for masculinity. The “script” written by society is in some ways similar to a script written by a playwright. Just as a playwright expects actors to adhere to a prescribed script, society expects women and men to behave according to the expectations of their respective gender roles. Scripts are generally learned through a process known as socialization, which teaches people to behave according to social norms.

Socialization

Children learn at a young age that there are distinct expectations for boys and girls. Cross-cultural studies reveal that children are aware of gender roles by age two or three. At four or five, most children are firmly entrenched in culturally appropriate gender roles (Kane 1996). Children acquire these roles through socialization, a process in which people learn to behave in a particular way as dictated by societal values, beliefs, and attitudes. For example, society often views riding a motorcycle as a masculine activity and, therefore, considers it to be part of the male gender role. Attitudes such as this are typically based on stereotypes, oversimplified notions about members of a group. Gender stereotyping involves overgeneralizing about the attitudes, traits, or behavior patterns of women or men. For example, women may be thought of as too timid or weak to ride a motorcycle.

Gender stereotypes form the basis of sexism. Sexism refers to prejudiced beliefs that value one sex over another. It varies in its level of severity. In parts of the world where women are strongly undervalued, young girls may not be given the same access to nutrition, healthcare, and education as boys. Further, they will grow up believing they deserve to be treated differently from boys (UNICEF 2011; Thorne 1993). While it is illegal in the United States when practiced as discrimination, unequal treatment of women continues to pervade social life. It should be noted that discrimination based on sex occurs at both the micro- and macro-levels. Many sociologists focus on discrimination that is built into the social structure; this type of discrimination is known as institutional discrimination (Pincus 2008).

Gender socialization occurs through four major agents of socialization: family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Each agent reinforces gender roles by creating and maintaining normative expectations for gender-specific behavior. Exposure also occurs through secondary agents such as religion and the workplace. Repeated exposure to these agents over time leads men and women into a false sense that they are acting naturally rather than following a socially constructed role.

Family is the first agent of socialization. There is considerable evidence that parents socialize sons and daughters differently. Generally speaking, girls are given more latitude to step outside of their prescribed gender role (Coltrane and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000; Raffaelli and Ontai 2004). However, differential socialization typically results in greater privileges afforded to sons. For instance, boys are allowed more autonomy and independence at an earlier age than daughters. They may be given fewer restrictions on appropriate clothing, dating habits, or curfew. Sons are also often free from performing domestic duties such as cleaning or cooking and other household tasks that are considered feminine. Daughters are limited by their expectation to be passive and nurturing, generally obedient, and to assume many of the domestic responsibilities.

Even when parents set gender equality as a goal, there may be underlying indications of inequality. For example, boys may be asked to take out the garbage or perform other tasks that require strength or toughness, while girls may be asked to fold laundry or perform duties that require neatness and care. It has been found that fathers are firmer in their expectations for gender conformity than are mothers, and their expectations are stronger for sons than they are for daughters (Kimmel 2000). This is true in many types of activities, including preference for toys, play styles, discipline, chores, and personal achievements. As a result, boys tend to be particularly attuned to their father’s disapproval when engaging in an activity that might be considered feminine, like dancing or singing (Coltraine and Adams 2008). Parental socialization and normative expectations also vary along lines of social class, race, and ethnicity. African American families, for instance, are more likely than Caucasians to model an egalitarian role structure for their children (Staples and Boulin Johnson 2004).

The reinforcement of gender roles and stereotypes continues once a child reaches school age. Until very recently, schools were rather explicit in their efforts to stratify boys and girls. The first step toward stratification was segregation. Girls were encouraged to take home economics or humanities courses and boys to take math and science.

Studies suggest that gender socialization still occurs in schools today, perhaps in less obvious forms (Lips 2004). Teachers may not even realize they are acting in ways that reproduce gender differentiated behavior patterns. Yet any time they ask students to arrange their seats or line up according to gender, teachers may be asserting that boys and girls should be treated differently (Thorne 1993).

Even in levels as low as kindergarten, schools subtly convey messages to girls indicating that they are less intelligent or less important than boys. For example, in a study of teacher responses to male and female students, data indicated that teachers praised male students far more than female students. Teachers interrupted girls more often and gave boys more opportunities to expand on their ideas (Sadker and Sadker 1994). Further, in social as well as academic situations, teachers have traditionally treated boys and girls in opposite ways, reinforcing a sense of competition rather than collaboration (Thorne 1993). Boys are also permitted a greater degree of freedom to break rules or commit minor acts of deviance, whereas girls are expected to follow rules carefully and adopt an obedient role (Ready 2001).

Mimicking the actions of significant others is the first step in the development of a separate sense of self (Mead 1934). Like adults, children become agents who actively facilitate and apply normative gender expectations to those around them. When children do not conform to the appropriate gender role, they may face negative sanctions such as being criticized or marginalized by their peers. Though many of these sanctions are informal, they can be quite severe. For example, a girl who wishes to take karate class instead of dance lessons may be called a “tomboy” and face difficulty gaining acceptance from both male and female peer groups (Ready 2001). Boys, especially, are subject to intense ridicule for gender nonconformity (Coltrane and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000).

Mass media serves as another significant agent of gender socialization. In television and movies, women tend to have less significant roles and are often portrayed as wives or mothers. When women are given a lead role, it often falls into one of two extremes: a wholesome, saint-like figure or a malevolent, hypersexual figure (Etaugh and Bridges 2003). This same inequality is pervasive in children’s movies (Smith 2008). Research indicates that in the ten top-grossing G-rated movies released between 1991 and 2013, nine out of ten characters were male (Smith 2008).

Television commercials and other forms of advertising also reinforce inequality and gender-based stereotypes. Women are almost exclusively present in ads promoting cooking, cleaning, or childcare-related products (Davis 1993). Think about the last time you saw a man star in a dishwasher or laundry detergent commercial. In general, women are underrepresented in roles that involve leadership, intelligence, or a balanced psyche. Of particular concern is the depiction of women in ways that are dehumanizing, especially in music videos. Even in mainstream advertising, however, themes intermingling violence and sexuality are quite common (Kilbourne 2000).

Social Stratification and Inequality

Stratification refers to a system in which groups of people experience unequal access to basic, yet highly valuable, social resources. There is a long history of gender stratification in the United States. When looking to the past, it would appear that society has made great strides in terms of abolishing some of the most blatant forms of gender inequality (see timeline below) but underlying effects of male dominance still permeate many aspects of society.

• Before 1809—Women could not execute a will
• Before 1840—Women were not allowed to own or control property
• Before 1920—Women were not permitted to vote
• Before 1963—Employers could legally pay a woman less than a man for the same work
• Before 1973—Women did not have the right to a safe and legal abortion (Imbornoni 2009)

The Pay Gap

Despite making up nearly half (49.8 percent) of payroll employment, men vastly outnumber women in authoritative, powerful, and, therefore, high-earning jobs (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Even when a woman’s employment status is equal to a man’s, she will generally make only 81 cents for every dollar made by her male counterpart (Payscale 2020). Women in the paid labor force also still do the majority of the unpaid work at home. On an average day, 84 percent of women (compared to 67 percent of men) spend time doing household management activities (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). This double duty keeps working women in a subordinate role in the family structure (Hochschild and Machung 1989).

Gender stratification through the division of labor is not exclusive to the United States. According to George Murdock’s classic work, Outline of World Cultures (1954), all societies classify work by gender. When a pattern appears in all societies, it is called a cultural universal. While the phenomenon of assigning work by gender is universal, its specifics are not. The same task is not assigned to either men or women worldwide. But the way each task’s associated gender is valued is notable. In Murdock’s examination of the division of labor among 324 societies around the world, he found that in nearly all cases the jobs assigned to men were given greater prestige (Murdock and White 1968). Even if the job types were very similar and the differences slight, men’s work was still considered more vital.

Part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to unique barriers faced by women regarding work experience and promotion opportunities. A mother of young children is more likely to drop out of the labor force for several years or work on a reduced schedule than is the father. As a result, women in their 30s and 40s are likely, on average, to have less job experience than men. This effect becomes more evident when considering the pay rates of two groups of women: those who did not leave the workforce and those who did: In the United States, childless women with the same education and experience levels as men are typically paid with closer (but not exact) parity to men. However, women with families and children are paid less: Mothers are recommended a 7.9 percent lower starting salary than non-mothers, which is 8.6 percent lower than men (Correll 2007).

This evidence points to levels of discrimination that go beyond behaviors by individual companies or organizations. As discussed earlier in the gender roles section, many of these gaps are rooted in America’s social patterns of discrimination, which involve the roles that different genders play in child-rearing, rather than individual discrimination by employers in hiring and salary decisions. On the other hand, legal and ethical practices demand that organizations do their part to promote more equity among all genders.

The Glass Ceiling

The idea that women are unable to reach the executive suite is known as the glass ceiling. It is an invisible barrier that women encounter when trying to win jobs in the highest level of business. At the beginning of 2021, for example, a record 41 of the world’s largest 500 companies were run by women. While a vast improvement over the number twenty years earlier – where only two of the companies were run by women – these 41 chief executives still only represent eight percent of those large companies (Newcomb 2020).

Why do women have a more difficult time reaching the top of a company? One idea is that there is still a stereotype in the United States that women aren’t aggressive enough to handle the boardroom or that they tend to seek jobs and work with other women (Reiners 2019). Other issues stem from the gender biases based on gender roles and motherhood discussed above.

Another idea is that women lack mentors, executives who take an interest and get them into the right meetings and introduce them to the right people to succeed (Murrell & Blake-Beard 2017).

Women in Politics

One of the most important places for women to help other women is in politics. Historically in the United States, like many other institutions, political representation has been mostly made up of White men. By not having women in government, their issues are being decided by people who don’t share their perspective. The number of women elected to serve in Congress has increased over the years, but does not yet accurately reflect the general population. For example, in 2018, the population of the United States was 49 percent male and 51 percent female, but the population of Congress was 78.8 percent male and 21.2 percent female (Manning 2018). Over the years, the number of women in the federal government has increased, but until it accurately reflects the population, there will be inequalities in our laws.

Movements for Change: Feminism

One of the underlying issues that continues to plague women in the United States is misogyny . This is the hatred of or, aversion to, or prejudice against women. Over the years misogyny has evolved as an ideology that men are superior to women in all aspects of life. There have been multiple movements to try and fight this prejudice.

In 1963, writer and feminist Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in which she contested the post-World War II belief that it was women’s sole destiny to marry and bear children. Friedan’s book began to raise the consciousness of many women who agreed that homemaking in the suburbs sapped them of their individualism and left them unsatisfied. In 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) formed and proceeded to set an agenda for the feminist movement . Framed by a statement of purpose written by Friedan, the agenda began by proclaiming NOW’s goal to make possible women’s participation in all aspects of American life and to gain for them all the rights enjoyed by men.

Feminists engaged in protests and actions designed to bring awareness and change. For example, the New York Radical Women demonstrated at the 1968 Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City to bring attention to the contest’s—and society’s—exploitation of women. The protestors tossed instruments of women’s oppression, including high-heeled shoes, curlers, girdles, and bras, into a “freedom trash can.” News accounts incorrectly described the protest as a “bra burning,” which at the time was a way to demean and trivialize the issue of women’s rights (Gay 2018).

Other protests gave women a more significant voice in a male-dominated social, political, and entertainment climate. For decades, Ladies Home Journal had been a highly influential women’s magazine, managed and edited almost entirely by men. Men even wrote the advice columns and beauty articles. In 1970, protesters held a sit-in at the magazine’s offices, demanding that the company hire a woman editor-in-chief, add women and non-White writers at fair pay, and expand the publication’s focus.

Feminists were concerned with far more than protests, however. In the 1970s, they opened battered women’s shelters and successfully fought for protection from employment discrimination for pregnant women, reform of rape laws (such as the abolition of laws requiring a witness to corroborate a woman’s report of rape), criminalization of domestic violence, and funding for schools that sought to counter sexist stereotypes of women. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated a number of state laws under which abortions obtained during the first three months of pregnancy were illegal. This made a nontherapeutic abortion a legal medical procedure nationwide.

Gloria Steinem had pushed through gender barriers to take on serious journalism subjects, and had emerged as a prominent advocate for women’s rights. Through her work, Steinem met Dorothy Pittman-Hughes, who had founded New York City’s first shelter for domestic violence victims as well as the city’s Agency for Child Development. Together they founded Ms . Magazine, which avoided articles on homemaking and fashion in favor of pieces on women’s rights and empowerment. Ms . showcased powerful and accomplished women such as Shirley Chisholm and Sissy Farenthold, and was among the first publications to bring domestic violence, sexual harassment, and body image issues to the national conversation (Pogrebrin 2011).

Many advances in women’s rights were the result of women’s greater engagement in politics. For example, Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, was the co-author of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX of which prohibits sex discrimination in education. Mink had been interested in fighting discrimination in education since her youth, when she opposed racial segregation in campus housing while a student at the University of Nebraska. She went to law school after being denied admission to medical school because of her gender. Like Mink, many other women sought and won political office, many with the help of the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). In 1971, the NWPC was formed by Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, and other leading feminists to encourage women’s participation in political parties, elect women to office, and raise money for their campaign.

Shirley Chisholm personally took up the mantle of women’s involvement in politics. Born of immigrant parents, she earned degrees from Brooklyn College and Columbia University, and began a career in early childhood education and advocacy. In the 1950’s she joined various political action groups, worked on election campaigns, and pushed for housing and economic reforms. After leaving one organization over its refusal to involve women in the decision-making process, she sought to increase gender and racial diversity within political and activist organizations throughout New York City. In 1968, she became the first Black woman elected to Congress. Refusing to take the quiet role expected of new Representatives, she immediately began sponsoring bills and initiatives. She spoke out against the Vietnam War, and fought for programs such as Head Start and the national school lunch program, which was eventually signed into law after Chisholm led an effort to override a presidential veto. Chisholm would eventually undertake a groundbreaking presidential run in 1972, and is viewed as paving the way for other women, and especially women of color, achieving political and social prominence (Emmrich 2019).

Theoretical Perspectives on Gender

Sociological theories help sociologists to develop questions and interpret data. For example, a sociologist studying why middle-school girls are more likely than their male counterparts to fall behind grade-level expectations in math and science might use a feminist perspective to frame her research. Another scholar might proceed from the conflict perspective to investigate why women are underrepresented in political office, and an interactionist might examine how the symbols of femininity interact with symbols of political authority to affect how women in Congress are treated by their male counterparts in meetings.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism has provided one of the most important perspectives of sociological research in the twentieth century and has been a major influence on research in the social sciences, including gender studies. Viewing the family as the most integral component of society, assumptions about gender roles within marriage assume a prominent place in this perspective.

Functionalists argue that gender roles were established well before the pre-industrial era when men typically took care of responsibilities outside of the home, such as hunting, and women typically took care of the domestic responsibilities in or around the home. These roles were considered functional because women were often limited by the physical restraints of pregnancy and nursing and unable to leave the home for long periods of time. Once established, these roles were passed on to subsequent generations since they served as an effective means of keeping the family system functioning properly.

When changes occurred in the social and economic climate of the United States during World War II, changes in the family structure also occurred. Many women had to assume the role of breadwinner (or modern hunter-gatherer) alongside their domestic role in order to stabilize a rapidly changing society. When the men returned from war and wanted to reclaim their jobs, society fell back into a state of imbalance, as many women did not want to forfeit their wage-earning positions (Hawke 2007).

Conflict Theory

According to conflict theory, society is a struggle for dominance among social groups (like women versus men) that compete for scarce resources. When sociologists examine gender from this perspective, we can view men as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Consider the Women’s Suffrage Movement or the debate over women’s “right to choose” their reproductive futures. It is difficult for women to rise above men, as dominant group members create the rules for success and opportunity in society (Farrington and Chertok 1993).

Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist, studied family structure and gender roles. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force is also seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat. This is due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages, which is even worse for women who are entirely dependent upon their spouses for economic support. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they can gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden, as noted earlier (Rismanand and Johnson-Sumerford 1998).

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is a type of conflict theory that examines inequalities in gender-related issues. It uses the conflict approach to examine the maintenance of gender roles and inequalities. Radical feminism, in particular, considers the role of the family in perpetuating male dominance. In patriarchal societies, men’s contributions are seen as more valuable than those of women. Patriarchal perspectives and arrangements are widespread and taken for granted. As a result, women’s viewpoints tend to be silenced or marginalized to the point of being discredited or considered invalid.

Sanday’s study of the Indonesian Minangkabau (2004) revealed that in societies some consider to be matriarchies (where women comprise the dominant group), women and men tend to work cooperatively rather than competitively regardless of whether a job is considered feminine by U.S. standards. The men, however, do not experience the sense of bifurcated consciousness under this social structure that modern U.S. females encounter (Sanday 2004).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing the critical role of symbols in human interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity. Imagine that you walk into a bank hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you may state your case logically by listing all the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant as a means of appealing to the analytical characteristics associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, you may make an emotional appeal by stating your good intentions as a means of appealing to the caring characteristics associated with femininity.

Because the meanings attached to symbols are socially created and not natural, and fluid, not static, we act and react to symbols based on the current assigned meaning. The word gay , for example, once meant “cheerful,” but by the 1960s it carried the primary meaning of “homosexual.” In transition, it was even known to mean “careless” or “bright and showing” (Oxford American Dictionary 2010). Furthermore, the word gay (as it refers to a person), carried a somewhat negative and unfavorable meaning fifty years ago, but it has since gained more neutral and even positive connotations. When people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender . This notion is based on the work of West and Zimmerman (1987). Whether we are expressing our masculinity or femininity, West and Zimmerman argue, we are always "doing gender." Thus, gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.

In other words, both gender and sexuality are socially constructed. The social construction of sexuality refers to the way in which socially created definitions about the cultural appropriateness of sex-linked behavior shape the way people see and experience sexuality. This is in marked contrast to theories of sex, gender, and sexuality that link male and female behavior to biological determinism , or the belief that men and women behave differently due to differences in their biology.

Sociological Research

Being male, being female, and being healthy.

In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male.

This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Seem and Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristic may help us one day better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women’s health, but also a reflection of society’s labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/12-2-gender-and-gender-inequality

© Aug 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Gender Inequality Essay

500+ words essay on gender inequality.

For many years, the dominant gender has been men while women were the minority. It was mostly because men earned the money and women looked after the house and children. Similarly, they didn’t have any rights as well. However, as time passed by, things started changing slowly. Nonetheless, they are far from perfect. Gender inequality remains a serious issue in today’s time. Thus, this gender inequality essay will highlight its impact and how we can fight against it.

  About Gender Inequality Essay

Gender inequality refers to the unequal and biased treatment of individuals on the basis of their gender. This inequality happens because of socially constructed gender roles. It happens when an individual of a specific gender is given different or disadvantageous treatment in comparison to a person of the other gender in the same circumstance.

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

Impact of Gender Inequality

The biggest problem we’re facing is that a lot of people still see gender inequality as a women’s issue. However, by gender, we refer to all genders including male, female, transgender and others.

When we empower all genders especially the marginalized ones, they can lead their lives freely. Moreover, gender inequality results in not letting people speak their minds. Ultimately, it hampers their future and compromises it.

History is proof that fighting gender inequality has resulted in stable and safe societies. Due to gender inequality, we have a gender pay gap. Similarly, it also exposes certain genders to violence and discrimination.

In addition, they also get objectified and receive socioeconomic inequality. All of this ultimately results in severe anxiety, depression and even low self-esteem. Therefore, we must all recognize that gender inequality harms genders of all kinds. We must work collectively to stop these long-lasting consequences and this gender inequality essay will tell you how.

How to Fight Gender Inequality

Gender inequality is an old-age issue that won’t resolve within a few days. Similarly, achieving the goal of equality is also not going to be an easy one. We must start by breaking it down and allow it time to go away.

Firstly, we must focus on eradicating this problem through education. In other words, we must teach our young ones to counter gender stereotypes from their childhood.

Similarly, it is essential to ensure that they hold on to the very same beliefs till they turn old. We must show them how sports are not gender-biased.

Further, we must promote equality in the fields of labour. For instance, some people believe that women cannot do certain jobs like men. However, that is not the case. We can also get celebrities on board to promote and implant the idea of equality in people’s brains.

All in all, humanity needs men and women to continue. Thus, inequality will get us nowhere. To conclude the gender inequality essay, we need to get rid of the old-age traditions and mentality. We must teach everyone, especially the boys all about equality and respect. It requires quite a lot of work but it is possible. We can work together and achieve equal respect and opportunities for all genders alike.

FAQ of Gender Inequality Essay

Question 1: What is gender inequality?

Answer 1: Gender inequality refers to the unequal and biased treatment of individuals on the basis of their gender. This inequality happens because of socially constructed gender roles. It happens when an individual of a specific gender is given different or disadvantageous treatment in comparison to a person of the other gender in the same circumstance.

Question 2: How does gender inequality impact us?

Answer 2:  The gender inequality essay tells us that gender inequality impacts us badly. It takes away opportunities from deserving people. Moreover, it results in discriminatory behaviour towards people of a certain gender. Finally, it also puts people of a certain gender in dangerous situations.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

Explainer: How gender inequality and climate change are interconnected

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

Gender inequality coupled with the climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It poses threats to ways of life, livelihoods, health, safety and security for women and girls around the world.

Historically, climate change scientists, researchers and policymakers have struggled with how to make the vital connections between gender, social equity, and climate change. As more and more data and research reveal their clear correlation, it’s time to talk about the disparate impacts of climate change and the linkages between women’s empowerment and effective, global climate action.

On International Women’s Day, we take a look at how climate change impacts women and girls, why gender equality is key to climate action, and what you can do to support solutions for women, by women.

How does climate change impact women and girls?

The climate crisis is not “gender neutral”. Women and girls experience the greatest impacts of climate change, which amplifies existing gender inequalities and poses unique threats to their livelihoods, health, and safety.

Across the world, women depend more on, yet have less access to, natural resources. In many regions, women bear a disproportionate responsibility for securing food, water, and fuel. Agriculture is the most important employment sector for women in low- and lower-middle income countries, during periods of drought and erratic rainfall, women, as agricultural workers and primary procurers, work harder to secure income and resources for their families. This puts added pressure on girls, who often have to leave school to help their mothers manage the increased burden.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier”, meaning it escalates social, political and economic tensions in fragile and conflict-affected settings. As climate change drives conflict across the world, women and girls face increased vulnerabilities to all forms of gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence, human trafficking, child marriage, and other forms of violence.

When disasters strike, women are less likely to survive and more likely to be injured due to long standing gender inequalities that have created disparities in information, mobility, decision-making, and access to resources and training. In the aftermath, women and girls are less able to access relief and assistance, further threatening their livelihoods, wellbeing and recovery, and creating a vicious cycle of vulnerability to future disasters.

Women’s and girls’ health is endangered by climate change and disasters by limiting access to services and health care, as well as increasing risks related to maternal and child health. Research indicates that extreme heat increases incidence of stillbirth, and climate change is increasing the spread of vector-borne illnesses such as malaria, dengue fever, and Zika virus, which are linked to worse maternal and neonatal outcomes .

How does climate change intersect with other inequalities for women and girls?

While women and girls experience disproportionate impacts from climate change at the global level, the effects are not uniform. Looking at climate change through the lens of intersectional feminism , the way in which various forms of inequality often operate together and exacerbate each other, it is clear that climate change risks are acute for indigenous and Afro-descendent women and girls, older women, LGBTIQ+ people, women and girls with disabilities, migrant women, and those living in rural, remote, conflict and disaster-prone areas.

“If you are invisible in everyday life, your needs will not be thought of, let alone addressed, in a crisis situation,” says Matcha Phorn-In , a lesbian feminist human-rights defender who works to empower stateless and landless Indigenous women, girls and young LGBTIQ+ people in Thailand’s Chiang Mai, Mae Hong Son, and Tak provinces. “Humanitarian programmes tend to be heteronormative and can reinforce the patriarchal structure of society if they do not take into account sexual and gender diversity,” Phorn-in explains. “In addressing structural change, we are advocating for and working towards equality of all kinds.”

In the Brazilian Amazon, Dandara Rudsan , a Black and trans activist and an environmental racism specialist in the Public Defender’s Office of Pará State, knows firsthand that centering the experiences and challenges faced by different groups illuminates the connections between all fights for justice and liberation.

“In the Amazon, defending human rights means fighting for the survival of people and the rainforest every day, but there is no hierarchy between agendas… To finance social movements in the Amazon is to finance the survival of these communities, these people, and the rainforest.”

• Climate change
• Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBT) rights

Related content

‘You have the power to change’ – Young women in South Africa break through stigma and poverty and inspire others

LGBTIQ+ migrants face unique risks, starting with the perception that they are second-class citizens – Interview with migrant rights activist Rey Perez Asis from The Philippines

In search of safety – LGBTIQ+ people on the move

• Society ›

Demographics

Gender inequality in the United States - statistics & facts

Is the future of politics female, a dual burden for mothers, key insights.

Detailed statistics

U.S. beliefs on how being a man or a woman affects one's ability to get ahead 2023

U.S. female to male earnings ratio 1990-2022

Pressures faced by employed parents in the U.S. in 2022, by gender

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Wages & Salaries

U.S. adults on the reason women earn less than men 2022

U.S. gender wage gap, by industry 2021

U.S. reasons for supporting the #MeToo movement 2022

Share of female leaders in the United States, by position in 2023

Share of parents who faced various challenges with childcare U.S. 2023

Further recommended statistics

Latin America & Caribbean: gender wage equality perception index 2024

Perceived gender wage equality for similar work in selected countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in 2024

Latin America & Caribbean: gender pay gap index 2024, by country

Gender pay gap index based on estimated earned income in selected countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in 2024

People who think giving women equal rights has gone far enough 2023, by country

Share of people worldwide who agree with the statement that giving women equal rights has gone far enough in 2023, by country and gender

Opinions on women's rights in Italy 2024, by gender

Do you think that things have gone far enough in Italy when it comes to giving women equal rights with men?

Gender equality index of Poland 2005-2023

Gender equality index of Poland compared to European Union (EU-28) from 2005 to 2023

Gender equality situation in Japanese society 2023

Opinion on gender equality within Japanese society as of April 2023

Media rights value of leading women's sports events 2023-2025

Media rights value of selected women's sporting events in 2023, with a forecast for 2025 (in million U.S. dollars)

Opinion in Sweden on whether gender equality has gone too far 2024

Share of population in Sweden thinking that things have gone so far when it comes to giving men and women equal rights that men are discriminated against in 2024

Biggest attendances in women's sports worldwide 2024

Highest-attended women's sporting events worldwide as of 2024

Biggest attendances in women's soccer worldwide 2024

Highest-attended women's soccer games worldwide as of 2024

Revenue of Women's Super League clubs 2022-2023, by club

Revenue of clubs in the FA Women's Super League in 2022/23, by club (in million GBP)

Combined revenue of Women's Super League clubs 2020-2025

Total revenue of clubs in the FA Women's Super League from 2020/21 to 2022/23, with a forecast to 2024/25 (in million GBP)

Total of addressed concerns involving women's rights violations Indonesia 2016-2021

Number of complaints handled pertaining to women's rights violations and violence against women in Indonesia from 2016 to 2021

Record transfers in women's soccer worldwide 2024

Most expensive transfers in women's soccer worldwide as of 2024 (in thousand GBP)

Leading women's soccer clubs worldwide 2022-2023, by revenue

Women's soccer clubs with the highest revenue worldwide in 2022/23 (in million euros)

Opinion on achieving gender equality in society in Japan 2023

Opinion on working towards gender equality in Japanese society as of April 2023

Share of individuals agreeing with statements about gender equality in Sweden 2024

Share of respondents agreeing with the following statements regarding gender equality in Sweden in 2024

Gender equality situation in Japanese society 2023, by gender

Opinion on gender equality within Japanese society as of April 2023, by gender

Gender equality situation at work in Japan 2023

Opinion on gender equality in the workplace in Japan as of April 2023

Gender equality situation in media in Japan 2023

Opinion on gender equality in media representation in Japan as of April 2023

Gender equality situation in the legal system in Japan 2023

Opinion on gender equality in law and constitution in Japan as of April 2023

Gender equality situation in customs and traditions in Japan 2023

Opinion on gender equality in customs and traditions in Japan as of April 2023

Gender equality situation in schools in Japan 2023

Opinion on gender equality in schools in Japan as of April 2023

Gender equality situation in families in Japan 2023

Opinion on gender equality in family households in Japan as of April 2023

Gender distribution of TV viewers of the Women's Six Nations in the UK 2022-2023

Share of TV viewers of the Women's Six Nations Championship in the United Kingdom in 2022 and 2023, by gender

Gender equality index of Hungary 2005-2021

Gender equality index of Hungary from 2005 to 2021

Gender equality index of Slovakia 2005-2021

Gender equality index of Slovakia from 2005 to 2021

Gender equality index of Czechia 2005-2021

Gender equality index of Czechia from 2005 to 2021

Opinion on equality of opportunity for promotion in Poland 2024, by gender

Do all employees with similar qualifications have equal opportunity for promotion, regardless of gender?

Gender distribution of ticket holders for The Women's Ashes in England 2023

Share of ticket buyers for The Women’s Ashes in England in 2023, by gender

Attitude towards gender equality efforts in Japan 2023

Opinion on whether Japan should make efforts towards achieving gender equality as of April 2023

Most popular women's sports competitions worldwide 2023-2024, by fanbase size

Fanbase size of selected women's sports competitions worldwide in 2023 and 2024 (in millions)

Average attendance of selected European women's soccer leagues 2021-2024

Average match attendance of selected women's soccer leagues in Europe from 2021/22 to 2023/24

Average attendance in the FA Women's Super League 2021-2024, by club

Average matchday attendance of clubs in the FA Women's Super League from 2021/22 to 2023/24, by club

Most Women's FA Cup titles 1970-2024, by club

Clubs with the most Women's FA Cup titles as of 2024

Economic impact of the Women’s World Cup in New Zealand 2023

Key figures on the economic impact of the FIFA Women’s World Cup in New Zealand in 2023

Most popular women's sports leagues in the U.S. 2023

Most popular women's professional sports leagues and competitions in the United States as of February 2023

Women's Empowerment Index scores worldwide 2023, by region

Women's Empowerment Index scores worldwide in 2023, by region

Engagement in men's and women's sporting events worldwide 2023

Preference between watching men's or women's sports among fans worldwide as of April 2023, by sport

U.S. Gender Parity Index 2023, by state

Gender Parity Index score for women's representation in government in the United States in 2023, by state

Public opinion on the field with the most gender inequality in Mexico 2021, by gender

Share of people who believe there is a strong gender inequality in diverse fields in Mexico in 2021, by field and gender

Highest-ranked women's soccer clubs in Europe 2024, by UEFA ranking

Leading women's soccer clubs in Europe as of June 2024, by UEFA ranking

Canadian sales of the women’s apparel market by segment 2023

Sales value of the women’s apparel market in Canada in 2023, by segment (in million Canadian dollars)

Market size of women's wear China 2014-2023

Market size of women's wear in China from 2014 to 2023 (in billion yuan)

Wage costs of Women's Super League clubs 2022-2023, by club

Wage costs of clubs in the FA Women's Super League in 2022/23, by club (in million GBP)

YoY growth of women's wear market China 2014-2023

Year-over-year growth of women's wear market in China from 2014 to 2023

Winner of the PFA women's player of the year award 2012-2024

Winner of the PFA Women's Players' Player of the Year award from 2012/13 to 2023/24, by season

Market concentration rate of the women's clothing market China 2014-2023

Market concentration ratio of the women's apparel market in China from 2014 to 2023

Highest-ranked women's national soccer teams worldwide 2024

Leading women's national soccer teams worldwide as of March 2024, by FIFA ranking

Global women's sportswear market size from 2018 to 2027

Women's performance sports apparel market value worldwide from 2018 to 2027 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Further reports

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

Gender Inequality - Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Gender inequality refers to the unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender, manifesting in various areas like the workplace, political representation, and societal norms. Essays on gender inequality could explore historical and contemporary instances, the social and economic implications, and the intersectionality of gender with other forms of discrimination. Furthermore, discussions might cover ongoing efforts to combat gender inequality and promote inclusivity. We’ve gathered an extensive assortment of free essay samples on the topic of Gender Inequality you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Gender Inequality and Feminism

Gender inequality is a concept which has been occurring over a number of years and due to gender differences it fuels up gender inequality, which gave rise to gender socialization. Gender socialization is the process of learning gender roles which emerge from society and nowadays social media, throughout this process men and women learn their roles in society. The most common attribute we ascribe to women is that they can be vulnerable and sensitive, on the other hand, men hear […]

Crime and Social Justice on Gender Inequality

I'm using these five sources to talk about crime and social justice on gender inequality. Gender inequality is more of a social injustice because gender inequality is an unfair practice between men and women being carried out in the society. Within discussing this topic, I talk about racism and sexism. My topic is towards African Americans and women in the workplace. How come African American women or women, in general, are not seen as an equal to men? Cheeks, Maura. […]

The Gender Gap in Political Ambition

The gender gap in political ambition has been a topic extensively researched by political analysts and professors for years. The focus of this essay will be to examine why this gender gap exists and how it directly affects the underrepresentation of women who hold public office in the United States. This essay will explore the ways in which young women are politically socialized and factors in early childhood through high school which affect one’s political motivations. This research also seeks […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Sexual Harassment in the Work Place and Gender Inequality

Abbas, in "All Males Are the Same: Exploring Workplace Harassment of Female Employees," addresses the issue of workplace sexual harassment towards females, which is common in many countries, specifically the Middle East. The article explores how workplace sexual harassment towards women contributes to the cause of gender inequality. Abbas supports his claim with numerous case studies. First, his findings suggest that workplace harassment is a universal problem embedded within societal traditions. Second, he examines how the unequal treatment of women […]

The Issue of Gender Inequality Within Society

According to the International Labour Organization, “equality in pay has improved in the US since 1979 when women earned about 62% as much as men. In 2010, American women on average earned 81% of what their male counterparts earned. Women’s participation in the U.S. labor force climbed during the 1970s and 1980s, reaching 60 percent in 2000. However, in 2010 this figure has declined to 46.7 percent and is not expected to increase by 2018.” (“Gender Inequality and Women in […]

“Education is the Passport to the Future”

“Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today” Malcolm X. It can be said that education helps us increase knowledge to actively achieve and meet challenges that can produce changes in which are productive for attaining business innovations, political and economic objectives. In sociological terms education is usually seen as the process of acquiring certain skills or knowledge within an institution designed for that purpose. According (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004), it […]

Gender Inequality in Broadcast Journalism

The news media is one of thea most powerful institution whichs that exerts a tremendous amount of influence on society. Although more women females are entering the male dominated newsroom, women are still underrepresented and excluded in many differentmultiple ways. It is evident that females hold a strong interest in journalism; in fact, sixty- five percent of journalism school graduates are female However, women only represent thirty percent of jobs in journalism. , Tand this gender disparity is evident in […]

Gender Inequality in the Workplace

Gender inequality in the workplace has been an ongoing issue for decades now. Men and women have never been on the same page when it comes to work. Women have always been known to be more of caregivers and men have been given the tougher tasks. Gender stereotypes have always played a major role in assigning women to lower paying and lower status jobs in comparison to men. Discrimination against women can occur in many ways throughout the workplace, such […]

Sappho and Catullus Romantic Rejection

Although Sappho and Catullus lived and worked in different time periods, their ideas on romantic rejection suggest each were victims of unrequited love. Both wrote about their cultural environment of where they lived, their ideas of society, its expectations and inequalities for both women and men as well as their different representations of love. They used their poetry to discuss the gender inequality of their societies and how unfair a society led by men really was in. It dictated the […]

Gender Inequality in the Medical Field

Introduction The medical field is consistently one of the best job fields to enter because of the positive job outlook and high salary. This may not be true for women, however. The large amount of gender discrimination and harassment may be enough to keep women away from the medical field, specifically female doctors. In this day and age there is no reason why women cannot become doctors and they are not lesser than their male peers, especially in the 21st […]

Gender Inequality in Education

Culturally, there is a belief that every individual has the same chance to succeed in society. Even in our constitution, it states that all men are created equal. What is underlying in this belief is that a failure to succeed is the fault of the gender or race of the individual. Inequalities in educational institutions affect students in various ways; providing greater impact on children from lower socio-economic backgrounds and maintaining advantages of those with money, which are then passed […]

Feminism Within the Film Industry

The film industry has had a recurring theme with its woman in film. The theme began as a woman playing a secondary role to males and playing the victim that needs rescuing. The rise of feminism began in the 1950s until the 1970s, at first it was unpopular with the audience and did not make its return until the 1990s. Throughout the years it is shown that woman has become more dominant in their roles as the main matriarch of […]

Gender Inequality in China

"Mao Zedong once said, “women hold up half the sky.” This famous quote has been interpreted by people for nearly one-hundred years. All interpretations tying back to one basic core idea that women hold just as much priority in the world as men do. However, in present-day China, social standards are far from equal between the two genders. Men still earn more money than their female counterparts, the gender ratio of the country is still out of balance, and boys […]

Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts

Gender Equality is “A state of having same rights, status and opportunities like others, regardless of one’s gender.” Gender inequality is “unequal treatment or perception of an individual based on their gender.” In the United States of America Gender Equality has progressed through the past decades. Due to different Cultural context, countries around the world lack Gender Equality. Gender inequality remains a issue worldwide, mainly in the Middle East and North Africa. Equality of Gender is normalized in the United […]

Gender Inequality Affects Everyone

Gender inequality has never been a new thing in the United States. This cultural phenomenon has deeply rooted in people’s minds and has been affecting their behaviors for a really long time. Gender inequality generally defines as that men and women in some way are not equal. Gender inequality recognizes gender inequality and gender influences an individual’s life experience. These differences stem from the distinctions in biology, psychology, and cultural norms. Some of these differences are based on experience, while […]

Research Paper on Gender Inequality in the Workforce in India

Abstract India demonstrates significant economy growth that contrary to universal norms results in lower female labor force participation. The issue is a deep-rooted problem, which is aggravated by a wide range of factors, the major of which are social norms and insufficient level of training and information on job opportunities. Despite the presence of these constraints, the paper suggests that there is a scope of possible measures, which can be implemented by the government to overcome the problem and mitigate […]

The Gender Wage Gap: Myth or Reality?

Gender inequality has been a persistent issue in the workforce. The gender wage gaps shows the difference between male and female workers’ earnings. In the modern day economy, women are typically paid less than men. The Equal Pay Act was passed in the U.S. on June 10, 1963, it was the beginning of achieving equal economic opportunity for women however, it alone did not solve the issue. In further effort to put an end to the century-old gender wage inequality, […]

Gender Inequality is Still a Huge Issue

Throughout history, men have always been perceived as the dominant gender compared to women. Up until recently, men were the ones going to work while the women stayed home. They did not have hardly any rights, while having to stay home to handle raising the children and keeping up with household chores. Not only that, but women also got constantly abused by their husbands while they got away with it. While in today’s society, things have changed drastically, gender inequality […]

Gender Inequality and Sexual Harassment

Attitudes regarding men’s violence against women shape gender inequality and also the sense of responses to this violence by the victim and others around. This is why we see many violence prevention campaigns media advertisements and social awareness. Attitudes and behaviors shape violence in several domains including culture, gender, institutional response to violence, women’s own responses to victimization and more. Gender role attitudes and their forced upholding play a major role regarding violence towards women [1]. From a young age, […]

Gender Inequality in the United States for Years

Gender inequality has been present in the United States for years. Women have been, and still are, mainly associated with the duties tied to their home. However, the role as the “homemaker” have limitations on women, causing them to experience dissatisfaction in their lives. Women are increasingly pushing against that stereotype, as shown by the increasing number of women, especially married women, that are joining the workforce. This allows women to steer away from being economically dependent on men, and […]

“Gender Inequality: a Greek Life and Legal Implications Study”

Abstract Attending college is supposed to be a time of newfound freedom. This freedom gives incoming students the opportunity to define who they are as a person, and often times the organizations students first join play a vital role in shaping who they are for years to come. When graduates reflect on their college years many say their best memories come from the organizations they joined. At Texas Christian University over half of the student population are in different Greek […]

How Gender Discrimination Effects Children

"It is during their first years that girls and boys learn gendered attitudes and expectations - from parents, caregivers, other family members, and teachers - about how girls and boys/women and men should behave, their social worth and what their role is in society." (e.g. Plan International) Gender inequality is an issue for all of us, but we often don't think about how it affects children. In recent decades, there have been elaborate studies on how sexism and gender stereotyping […]

Gender Inequality in Athletic Sports

Sports are both one of the most idolized and contested activities in our society today. Historically, sports have been used as a display for the public, for both entertainment and social purposes. Sports also provide professional opportunities for athletes and coaches at the highest level of performance. Regardless of the purpose or presentation, sports have created an element in our modern society. While sports have provided opportunities, it has also created underlying effects on social cues in regards to the […]

How to Deal with Gender Inequality in Sports

Looking at today’s fast world, sports has turned out to be a place where individuals can have extraordinary professions in and will likewise have the wages that one can get by owning a business as well, but the posing problem is that it is gender driven. Societal norms have a significant impact on a youth’s life, one of the fields in which it lays impact is sports. The major contributing factor is that since birth, humans observe and learn these […]

An Issue of Gender Inequality in the World

Gender inequality is still an issue in the world. In every five girls, one will not have access to an education. Girls in developing countries are not enrolled in school. Mexico has been dealing with gender inequality for years because women aren’t given the same rights as men. In Mexico, gender stereotypes and discrimination restrict women’s choices. Mexico falls in the bottom half of 144 countries when it comes to gender equality. Women were murdered just because of their gender […]

Gender Inequality and Violence in the United States

Gender inequality in the United States has been an issue since before our time with women and girls making strides since the early 1900’s to gain gender equity. Gender inequality is looked at as a key factor that underpins violence against women, why men produce certain acts of violence over woman and why men are looked at different by society than women, however the topic is complex and requires consideration from different perspectives, including ways to deter the violence. Most […]

Americanah: Gender Pay Gap in Nigeria and North America

In the book Americanah by Chimamanda Adichie, women's earning potentials are vividly shown based on experiences that Ifemelu and her Aunty Uju have in both Nigeria and North America. These earning potentials affect gender roles and expectations in Nigeria and North America because women are expected more to be the house keepers and mothers rather than ever having a job themselves. Nowadays it is much different as the feminist movement continues to grow across the world. This is presented throughout […]

The Roots of Gender Inequality in Developing Countries

In today’s world, gender equality is seen as a crucial need. According to the U.N., “1 in 5 women and girls between the ages of 15-49 have reported experiencing physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner within a 12-month period”. In developed countries, tremendous efforts have been made in order to achieve the goal of gender equality as now in 46 countries, “women now hold more than 30 percent of seats in national parliament in at least one chamber.” […]

An Analysis of the Problem of Gender Inequality

Furthermore, in nations like Yemen, sex variations are seen even in optional school where young men select at a rate 20 rate focuses higher than young ladies. On the off chance that fairness is educated in schools it will change the general public and how individuals think and act bringing about more ladies learning and graduating. As what the speakers have mentioned, gender inequality should be fought by both men and women. It is humans right. Gender inequality has greatly […]

Gender Inequality in Saudi Arabia

Gender inequality has been a major factor for many countries and as every single one of them continue to change and improve for the future, some places have stayed the same over time and are barely coming along and accepting what other areas have already passed on such as having equality not just for men, but for women as well and many of us today don’t realize how some people are not given the freedom to do what we do […]

Related topic

Additional example essays.

• Religion’s Role in Gender Equality
• The Gender Pay Gap and the Equality
• About Gender Discrimination in Sports
• The Oppression And Privilege
• Discrimination in Workplace
• Why Abortion Should be Illegal
• Death Penalty Should be Abolished
• Logical Fallacies in Letter From Birmingham Jail
• How the Roles of Women and Men Were Portrayed in "A Doll's House"
• Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner
• Substance Abuse and Mental Illnesses
• Med school personal statement

How To Write an Essay About Gender Inequality

Understanding gender inequality: the foundation.

To write an essay on gender inequality, it's crucial to start with a clear understanding of what gender inequality entails. It's a broad term that refers to the unequal treatment or perception of individuals based on their gender. Gender inequality manifests in various aspects of life, including but not limited to the workplace, education, politics, and social norms. Begin your essay by defining gender inequality, providing relevant examples from different areas of life, and explaining why it is a significant issue that warrants attention.

Research and Statistics: Building Your Argument

A well-researched essay is a powerful tool. Accumulate data and statistics from credible sources such as academic journals, international organizations (like the UN or WHO), and reputable news outlets. This research should include global perspectives, highlighting how gender inequality varies across different cultures and societies. Use this information to construct a strong argument, supporting your points with evidence. This approach not only adds weight to your essay but also demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic.

The Historical Perspective: Understanding the Roots

Incorporate a historical perspective to provide depth to your essay. Understanding the historical context of gender inequality helps to explain how and why it persists today. This can include an examination of gender roles throughout history, major movements for gender equality, and significant legal and social changes. A historical lens allows for a comprehensive view of the problem and its evolution over time.

Current Challenges and Debates

Focus on the current state of gender inequality. This section should explore the most pressing issues and debates surrounding gender inequality today. Topics can include the gender pay gap, underrepresentation in leadership positions, societal expectations, and the impact of gender stereotypes. This section can also cover the intersectionality of gender inequality, showing how it intersects with other forms of discrimination like race, class, and sexuality.

Solutions and Actions: Towards a More Equal Future

Every essay should look towards the future. Discuss potential solutions and actions that could be taken to address gender inequality. These can range from policy changes and educational reforms to shifts in cultural attitudes and individual actions. Highlight initiatives already in place that are working towards equality and suggest areas where more work is needed. This section should inspire and suggest practical ways for individuals and societies to contribute to a more gender-equal world.

Conclusion: Summarizing Key Points

Conclude your essay by summarizing the key points discussed. Reiterate the importance of addressing gender inequality and the impact it has on individuals and society as a whole. Your conclusion should leave readers with a clear understanding of the issue, its significance, and a sense of hope or urgency for the future. Remember, a strong conclusion can leave a lasting impression on your readers, motivating them to think more deeply about the subject or even take action.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

15 Gender Issues We Must Address 

According to The Gender Snapshot 2022 report, it will take around 300 years to reach gender equality. If countries do not make significant progress, the world won’t achieve Sustainable Development Goal #5 by 2030. There is no simple solution to gender inequality. It’s a complex web of intersecting issues that reinforce each other. How can the world untangle the web? Here are 15 gender issues that need to be addressed:

#1. Education access

The world has made significant progress in ensuring education access. Globally, girls have either closed or reversed gaps in accessing and completing education. Certain areas are still far behind and there’s still gender inequality among adults. Adult women are more likely to be illiterate compared to men. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 1 in 4 young women can’t read. COVID-19 likely had a negative impact, but specific data is still being collected and analyzed. Education is crucial for gender equality and the success of nations. A World Bank study estimated that when girls aren’t educated, it can cost countries $15-$30 trillion in lost lifetime productivity and earnings.

#2. Maternal death rate

Maternal death rate (also known as maternal mortality) refers to deaths caused by complications from pregnancy or childbirth. There was significant progress between 2000-2017. The global maternal death rate decreased by 38%. There’s still a long way to go, especially since deaths are mostly preventable. Among the wealthiest countries, the United States in particular needs to take action. The CDC recently released maternal mortality stats for 2020, revealing that deaths had increased from 2019 . Black women are three times more likely to die than white women. Overall, the United States’ maternal mortality rate is almost three times higher than France, which has the next highest death rate. Maternal death has a huge impact on families and society. In 2014, a study in three sub-counties in Western Kenya found that when a mother dies in pregnancy or childbirth, it triggers a wave of harm affecting her children, their education, the family’s health, and more.

#3. Abortion and birth control access

Access to family planning resources (which include abortion and birth control) is essential to a person’s bodily autonomy. Access is also critical for the health, well-being, and economic prosperity of families, communities, and nations. At the time of writing, there are 24 countries or territories that prohibit abortion for any reason. At least 75 countries allow abortion on request with gestational limits. When the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, it joined just three countries (Poland, Nicaragua, and El Salvador) that have gone backward on abortion rights since 1994. Experts worry that states banning abortion will come for birth control like Plan B and IUDs next. Reproductive rights like abortion and birth are gendered, but it’s important to remember restrictions threaten everyone’s freedom.

#4. Informal employment

The informal economy is a sector of the economy that isn’t monitored or taxed. It forms a large part of developing countries, and while it provides work and wages, it’s much less secure or safe. The International Labor Organization estimates that around 60% of the world’s labor force works (at least part-time) in the informal economy. Why is this a gender issue? In low-income countries, 92.1% of employed women work in the informal economy compared to 87.5% of employed men. When the pandemic hit, women’s employment suffered the most. As an example, home-based workers earned 2% of their median pre-pandemic income in the middle of 2021 while in sub-Saharan Africa, 41% of women-owned businesses closed (compared to 34% of businesses owned by men). By supporting those in informal employment, countries can make progress on gender inequality.

#5. Unpaid labor

Unpaid labor includes childcare, cleaning, cooking, and caring for older family members. Globally, women spend about 3.2 times more time on unpaid work than men. No country on the planet splits this work evenly. While unpaid labor often fills in social service gaps, keeps families afloat, and supports economies, unpaid labor isn’t valued. Women are simply expected to sacrifice their time – which they could use to work for pay or pursue education – without compensation. This can keep families locked in cycles of poverty and fuel gender inequality. Countries can change things by legislating more paid leave, investing in high-quality childcare, offering child tax credits, and more. These solutions will primarily help women because they do so much unpaid labor, but it’s good for other caregivers, families, and children, too.

#6. The gender pay gap

The gender pay gap is one of the best-known gender issues, but progress has been slow. Globally, the World Bank estimates that about 2.4 billion women of working age don’t get equal economic opportunities compared to men. The amount of unpaid labor put on women is a big reason why, but many countries aren’t paying women as much as men. The World Bank also found that just 95 of the surveyed 190 economies mandate equal pay for equal work for men and women. In the United States, eliminating the gender pay gap could halve the poverty rate for all working women.

#7. Gender-based violence

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a persistent issue infecting the entire world. According to the World Health Organization , 30% of women will be subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetimes. 38% of murdered women are killed by their intimate partners. Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and war increase gender-based violence. Why is this such a significant issue? The fear and reality of violence severely restrict a woman’s ability to move and live freely. This limits every area of her life, including career opportunities. Stopping gender-based violence is challenging. Solutions include recognizing warning signs of violence, investing in accountability, eliminating poverty, and ending the normalization of violence.

#8. Political representation

Men hold most of the world’s power. According to UN Women data from September 2022, there were 28 countries where 30 women served as Heads of State and/or Government. At this rate, it will take another 130 years to reach gender equality in the highest positions of power. Lower levels aren’t much better. Worldwide, women remain underrepresented at all levels of decision-making. Representation of trans people is also essential to gender equality worldwide.

#9. Transphobia

Because of transphobia, trans people face increased levels of violence and discrimination worldwide. In the US’ largest study of transgender and gender non-conforming people, 28% reported harassment in healthcare settings. In 2020, Human Rights Watch tracked a record number of violent attacks against transgender and gender non-conforming people. The real numbers are most likely higher as most harassment and violence are never reported. In the US, bills targeting trans youth have been piling up. Unless transphobia is addressed, things will only get worse.

#10. Human trafficking

Human trafficking affects all genders, but not in the same ways. Women and girls made up 60% of all victims in 2020. They’re also three times more likely to experience extreme violence. The share of male victims has been increasing. This is most likely because forced labor is becoming more common and more men and boys are trafficked for this purpose. Gender norms about masculinity and exploitation play a role in identification; many men don’t call themselves human trafficking victims. When dealing with human trafficking, it’s important to understand the gendered dynamics.

#11. Racialized gender

The term “ racialized gender ” refers to how race intersects with gender. While white women face gender discrimination, their whiteness shields them from oppression doled unto women of color. This changes the nature of the gender equality fight as Black women, Latina women, Indigenous women, Asian women, etc, face different barriers and increased (and often sexualized) violence. Recognizing these differences, as well as the prevalence of racism within white feminism movements, is important.

#12. Mental health

Mental health and mental illnesses are complex, but there do seem to be differences when it comes to gender. Women are more likely to report depression and anxiety , although men could be hiding their mental health struggles due to societal biases about masculinity. Women are more likely to attempt suicide while men are four times more likely (in the United States) to successfully end their own lives. This could be because men tend to choose more violent, lethal methods. Researchers are still untangling the mysteries about mental health, but it’s clear gender plays a role.

#13. Online radicalization

In the past decade or so, several young men have carried out mass shootings. Many of them have something in common: they were radicalized online. Experts are raising the alarm about these toxic online spaces, which target lonely men and boys as young as middle school. Organized networks of anti-feminist, racist influencers congregate where they know boys hang out (like gaming websites) and seed hateful, violent rhetoric and beliefs. Algorithms also play a role in pulling young men deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. Parents, educators, and schools need to learn to recognize warning signs and intervene before beliefs turn into violence.

#14. Climate change

change affects men and women differently . In areas where climate change’s effects are most powerful, women are usually the ones who collect food, water, and fuel. If male family members need to leave home for work, women and girls take on even more unpaid labor, which is made more difficult by climate change. According to recent forecasts , 62.8% of the world’s poorest women live in sub-Saharan Africa, which is also the region most vulnerable to climate change. While climate change doesn’t discriminate based on gender, its effects are not proportionate. Gender equality is key to fighting climate change.

#15. Discriminatory laws

Many of the world’s gender issues have roots in the law. According to the World Bank’s Women, Business, and the Law report, on average women get about ¾ of the same legal rights as men. The report uses eight indicators to measure women’s “interactions with the law” throughout their careers: Mobility, Workplace, Pay, Marriage, Parenthood, Entrepreneurship, Assets, and Pension. There’s been some progress as 23 economies made reforms. However, 46 economies still don’t have legislation on sexual harassment in the workplace. 89 economies also need legal reforms to improve women’s agency and decision-making within marriage. Laws aren’t a magic bullet, but they’re an essential foundation for better gender equality

You may also like

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples

Here, you will find 85 thought-provoking topics relating to gender, equality, and discrimination. Browse through our list to find inspiration for your paper – and don’t forget to read the gender inequality essay samples written by other students.

👩 Top 10 Gender Equality Title Ideas

🏆 best gender bias essay topics, 💡 interesting topics to write about gender inequality, 📌 simple & easy gender inequality essay titles, 👍 good gender equality research title ideas, ❓ gender inequality research questions.

• Globalization, gender, and development.
• The Pink Tax.
• Women and unpaid labor.
• Gender stereotypes in media.
• Emma Watson’s speech on gender equality.
• A critique of HeForShe campaign.
• Education for girls in Ghana.
• The suffrage movement.
• Crimes against girls and women.
• Female empowerment in STEM fields.
• Gender Inequality in the Story of Ama Aidoo “In the Cutting of a Drink” The story of Ama Aidoo In the Cutting of a Drink tells about gender inequality, which is expressed in the clash between the typical values of rural residents and the values of people living in […]
• Gender Inequality in Workplace Gender is the main reason for inequalities in the workplace; this is because nowadays there is a steady increase in the number of women in workplaces in the world.
• Sociological perspectives of Gender Inequality The events taking place in the modern world and the occurrence of the feminist movements during the past few decades can be used to offer a deeper understanding on the subject of gender inequality and […]
• Gender Inequality as a Global Issue This essay will examine some of the causes that affect the gap in the treatment of men and women, and its ramifications, particularly regarding developing countries.
• Gender Inequality in the Field of Working Wright and Yaeger state that it is the deep intersection of the life and work fields in the current working paradigm that creates daily and long-term problems, limits the available time for male and female […]
• Gender Inequality and Female Leaders in the Hospitality Industry The current literature regarding the challenges and issues facing women in leadership positions in the hospitality industry in France is inadequate.
• Gender Inequality as a Global Societal Problem For eliminating the gender wage gap, nationwide legislation shows to increase the hiring and promotion of women in the workplace. Unfortunately, there is a gap in scholarly research in regards to reflecting the success of […]
• Gender Inequality: The Role of Media The media plays a major role in gender socialization because of the ways it chooses to portray women. Shows such as Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and Snow White are famous because they usher children […]
• Gender Inequality in Social Media Research shows that teenagers from the age of thirteen use social media to discuss the physical appearances of girls and exchange images with sexual content.
• Social, Cultural and Gender Inequality From a Global Perspective It is the duty of the tutor to craft a lecture-room environment that serves to enhance meaningful discussions concerning gender. This is due to the fact that students learn best in various ways.
• Gender Inequality: On the Influence of Culture and Religion Therefore, to understand more about the topic, it is essential to study the issues from various perspectives and find the connection of the discourse to other gender-related problems and theories.
• Gender Inequality in Afghanistan Thirdly, there is social gender inequality, which is demonstrated by women being the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, inequalities in education attainment, lack of freedom to marry and divorce, and unequal access to […]
• Gender Inequality and the Glass Ceiling The significant societal barriers that keep women from achieving the highest levels of their careers include, but are not limited to, organizational barriers, societal barriers, and Personal barriers.
• Gender Inequality in Family Business One of the problems that every woman faces in a family business is that of succession. In the model of Royal Families, the right to lead the business belongs to the oldest son.
• Gender Inequality in Relation to the Military Service In his article, Soutik Biswas refers to the intention of India’s Supreme Court to influence the government and give women commanding roles in the army.
• Women’s Rights and Gender Inequality in Saudi Arabia Indeed, it is crucial to understand the importance of women’s rights, see the connections between the past, the present, the local, and the global, and realize how political and media discourse represents the social issue […]
• Gender Inequality and Socio-Economic Development Gender inequality in the US determines who is to be in the kitchen and who is to sit in the White House.
• The Issue of Gender Inequality Reflection Unfortunately, in the opinion of many, inequality in their treatment is even more pronounced, forming a third group from such persons in addition to binary people and positioning them at the end of the list.
• Femicide in Mexico and the Problem of Gender Inequality Femicide remains one of the most devastating issues in Mexico, and it is vital to address the gender oppression and inequality that women face.
• Gender Inequality in Mass Media However, as a part of society, media organizations are influenced by the same social aspects and biased conclusions as the rest of the community. As a result, the owners and managers of media are mainly […]
• Gender Inequality in American Stories and Plays There are disputes about the sexual desire of men and women and how it is applied, and the use of physical strength of men on women.
• Gender Inequality and Female Empowerment Promotion Therefore, it is crucial to continue celebrating women’s accomplishments and encourage a positive change within the current perception of women as a social and biological class.
• Gender Inequality in Interdisciplinary Lenses Both sociologists and legal experts concur that a gender bias ingrained in society is the primary factor contributing to the issue of women in the workforce.
• Gender Inequality at Work in Developed Countries In France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Great Britain, men are disadvantaged throughout the employment process for professions where women predominate. These are the conclusions of a study conducted by the University of Amsterdam, the University […]
• Gender Inequality and Its Causes Analysis It is evident that the difference is so insignificant to the point where some women can be athletically stronger than men, and there is a vast difference in strength among men themselves.
• Human Objectification as a Tool of Gender Inequality Objectification and culture of suppressed emotions of the male gender lead to the further sexual objectification of the females resulting in unequal social positions.
• Gender Inequality in the Video Games Industry The portrayal of males and females in video games is a subject of study in gender studies and is discussed in the context of sexism in the industry.
• The Issue of Gender Inequality After Covid-19 To date, the role of women in society has increased many times over, both in the economic, social, and political spheres of public life.
• Gender Inequality in the Construction Field It is important that the main actors in the sector understand that gender equality can help reduce the issue of shortage of skill that exists in that field.
• Social Enterprises and Gender Inequality in Dubai In the context of UAE demographics, the population of Dubai has been rightfully considered the most diverse in terms of age, income, and socio-ethnic background, as this city is a conglomerate for tourists, business visitors, […]
• Combating Gender Inequality It is thanks to this approach that humanity will be able to successfully cope with the problem of gender inequality, sexism, and discrimination.
• The Relationship Between Gender Inequality and Women’s Economic Independence In a scenario where the wife is employed, either of the parents has the means of supporting themselves as well as other dependents, and this is the most remarkable benefit of emancipation.
• Gender Inequality and Its Implications on American Society It is not just the fight for the women’s rights, elimination of the gender pay gap or the harassment phenomenon. The voices of those who disagree with the fact that the resolution of one case […]
• Women From the Downtown Eastside: Gender Inequality One of the main questions that bother many people around the whole world is the identification of the conditions under which the citizens of the Downtown Eastside disappeared.
• Issues Surrounding Gender Inequality in the Workplace The main objective of the constructionist point of view is that it is aimed at uncovering how the individuals and the groups tend to participate in the creation of their perceptions of gender and women […]
• Public Policy Analysis on Gender Inequality in Education in South Sudan The major challenges related to the development of the educational system are the ongoing violent attacks and natural disasters. The General Education Strategic Plan, 2017-2022 is the government’s response to the most burning issues in […]
• Gender Inequality, Violence Against Women, and Fear in The Sopranos Thus, the major research question will be “Does The Sopranos endorse or criticize VaW through the frequent depiction of the scenes of cruelty?” The hypothesis of the research paper will be “The portrayal of VaW […]
• Race & Gender Inequality and Economic Empowerment This means that the study will analyze the problem of race and gender inequality and examine how it is related to poverty.
• Gender Inequality: “Caliban and the Witch” by Federici Federici shows the fall of female ability for autonomy and the rise of patriarchal societies as a result of an emerging emphasis on global trade and the perceived notion that the wealth of the country […]
• Gender Inequality Index 2013 in the Gulf Countries However, the ratio of women in the parliament is noticeably lower, and that explains why the GII of Kuwait is slightly higher than the one of the UEA.
• Gender Inequality: Reginald Murphy College To establish the accuracy of the allegations raised as a group, the factors to ensuring the retrieval of the correct information about the issue in question are the involvement of all members of the administration […]
• Gender Inequality and Its Historical Origin Seeing that the effects of the two factors are reciprocal, it can be assumed that, though both have had a tangible impact on the contemporary representation of women in the society, traditions have a significantly […]
• Gender Inequality in Europe, America, Asia, Africa The laws and customs of the countries located in Africa and the Middle East are shaped by many factors. Some of the laws in the Middle East are clearly unfair towards women.
• Women in the Workplace: Gender Inequality I examine the idea of work-and-life balance that is proposed as a solution to the problem of having a family and career at the same time and point out the fact that it is typically […]
• Bill Myers’ Leadership and Gender Inequality In this case, the bartenders, wait staff and the busboys all possess the required skills and knowledge for the job, and thus ought to be treated equally.
• Gender Inequality in the Labor Force The aim of this article is to assess the assertion that gender inequality exists in the labor force. The table below shows global adult employment-to-population by gender for 1998 and 2008.
• How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World? According Ridgeway, it may not be correct per se to say that its only women who are aggrieved by the gender imbalance but majority of the cases that depict gender inequalities involve women on the […]
• Gender Inequality in America This event highlighted the extent to which women were vulnerable to the prejudices of the society. This particular event is important because it lead to the exclusion of women from the political life of the […]
• Gender inequality in Algeria The fact that women helped to build back the ruins of society and the heroism they showed in the war efforts, was forgotten by their husbands and the government.
• Gender inequality in Canada According to, although it is certain that men and women have actual differences particularly physically, most of the social indifference perception are not because of the biological connotation but because of the over time cultural […]
• Gender Inequality in the US Of more importance in the enhancement of gender inequality is the role of the media. The natural constrains described above and the multiplier effects from the historical insubordination of women still play to men’s favor […]
• Observations on the Gender Inequality This is the best way to preserve the stability and order in a gendered society, although the young woman in the street cannot accept this order of things.
• The Effects of International Trade on Gender Inequality: Women Carpet Weavers of Iran
• The Prevailing Gender Inequality in USA
• Perspectives On Gender Inequality And The Barrier Of Culture On Education
• Race, Ethnicity and Gender Inequality in the Rwanda Genocide
• The Scarcity Of Water And Its Effect On Gender Inequality
• Unequal Division Of Economic Growth And Gender Inequality
• The Measurement of Multidimensional Gender Inequality
• The Growing Issue of Gender Inequality in the Workplace
• Understanding Gender Inequality in Employment and Retirement
• The Violation of Women and the Practice of Gender Inequality Through Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
• The Different Elements That Affect Gender Inequality in Society
• How Gender Inequality Is Defined As The Unequal Treatment
• The Controversial Issue of Gender Inequality in the Twentieth Century
• The Correlation between Poverty and Gender Inequality
• The Problem of Gender Inequality in the United States and Its Negative Impact on American Society
• National Culture, Gender Inequality and Women’s Success in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
• The Institutional Basis of Gender Inequality: The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI)
• The Issue of Gender Stereotypes and Its Contribution to Gender Inequality in the Second Presidential Debate
• Women´s Right Movement: Gender Inequality
• International Relations: Gender Inequality Issues
• Problems of Gender Inequality for Women in India and Other
• The Role of Women Discrimination and Gender Inequality in Development: The Cross-Section Analysis by Different Income Groups
• The Effect of Gender Inequality on Economic Development: Case of African Countries
• The Role of Historical Resource Constraints in Modern Gender Inequality: A Cross-Country Analysis
• The Influence of Gender Budgeting in Indian States on Gender Inequality and Fiscal Spending
• Identity, Society, and Gender Inequality of Women in North West India
• How Debates of Gender Inequality and Gender Roles are Conflicted With Family Structures
• The Features of the Problem of Gender Inequality in the World
• Untapped Potential in the Study of Negotiation and Gender Inequality in Organizations
• The Impact of the Sectoral Allocation of Foreign aid on Gender Inequality
• The Impact Of Gender Inequality On Employee Satisfaction
• The Issue of Gender Inequality Between the North and South in the United States
• The Problem of Gender Inequality in South Asia and Its Effects on Girls and Women in Society
• Whether Patriarchy Is The Leading Cause Of Gender Inequality
• The Issues of Gender Inequality in the Book a Woman on the Edge
• Women Deserve For A Girl : A Real Issue Of Gender Inequality
• The Main Causes And Consequences Of Gender Inequality
• The Experience of Gender Inequality in The Awakening, a Novel by Kate Chopin
• The Issues of Gender Inequality in the Political Landscape Despite the Legal and Theoretical Attempts to Overcome the Gender Gap
• Measuring Key Disparities in Human Development: The Gender Inequality Index
• The Relationship of the Cultural and Historical Specificity of Gender Inequality in Mitchell’s Not Enough of the Past
• Stange Journeys and Gender Inequality in Pullman and Dangarembga
• Help or Hindrance? Religion’s Impact on Gender Inequality in Attitudes and Outcomes
• Should Women Continue Fighting Against Gender Inequality
• Women ‘s Gender Inequality By Chinua Achebe ‘s Things Fall Apart
• Legislation and Labour Market Gender Inequality: An Analysis of OECD Countries
• What Are the Types of Gender Inequality?
• Does Gender Inequality Hinder Development and Economic Growth?
• What Does Gender Inequality Mean?
• Does Trade Liberalization Help to Reduce Gender Inequality?
• What are the main issues of gender inequality?
• How Has Gender Inequality Impacted Contemporary Catholicism?
• What Determines Gender Inequality in Household Food Security in Kenya?
• Who Is Affected by Gender Inequality?
• What Causes Gender Inequality?
• Where Is Gender Inequality Most Common?
• What Are the Effects of Gender Equality?
• How Can We Stop Gender Inequality?
• What Is an Example of Gender Equality?
• Does Gender Inequality Still Exist Today?
• What Is the Impact of Gender Inequality in the Society?
• When Did Gender Inequality Become an Issue?
• What Are the Three Main Areas of Gender Inequality in the World?
• How Does Gender Inequality Affect Development?
• What Is the Difference Between Gender Equity, Gender Equality, and Women’s Empowerment?
• Why Is Gender Equality Important?
• Is Gender Equality a Concern for Men?
• What Are the Manifestations of Gender Inequality in the Modern Society?
• Is Gender Inequality Still a Pending and Pressing Issue in the Modern World?
• What Are the Causes and Effects of Gender Inequality in the European Society?
• Can Gender Inequality Issues Be a Boost for Women’s Progress, Development, and Improvement in the Workplace?
• What Are the Future Consequences and Outcomes of the Present-Day Gender Inequality?
• Where Does Gender Inequality Step From?
• Is It Possible at All to Achieve Gender Equality?
• What Is Gender Blindness and How Does It Impact the Overall Concept of Gender Inequality?
• Is Education a Solution to Solve Inequality Between the Sexes?
• Gender Roles Paper Topics
• Demography Paper Topics
• Family Relationships Research Ideas
• Women’s Rights Titles
• Personal Identity Paper Topics
• Women’s Role Essay Topics
• Workplace Discrimination Research Topics
• Feminism Questions
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-inequality-essay-topics/

"143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-inequality-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-inequality-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-inequality-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "143 Unique Gender Inequality Essay Titles & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-inequality-essay-topics/.

Sustainable Development Goal 5

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Sustainable Development Goal 5 is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, according to the United Nations .

The visualizations and data below present the latest data on our progress there.

The UN has defined 9 targets and 14 indicators for SDG 5. Targets specify the goals and indicators represent the metrics by which the world aims to track whether these targets are achieved. Below we quote the original text of all targets and show the data on the agreed and some related indicators.

Target 5.1 End discrimination against women and girls

Sdg indicator 5.1.1 legal frameworks for gender equality and non-discrimination.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.1.1 is “whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex” in the UN SDG framework .

This indicator measures the extent to which countries have legal frameworks in place for gender equality in four areas: (i) overarching legal frameworks and public life; (ii) violence against women; (iii) employment and economic benefits; and (iv) marriage and family. Data for this indicator is shown in the first four charts in the series of interactive visualizations.

The other charts show related measures, including women’s right to vote.

Target: By 2030 “end all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.”

This requires legal frameworks in place to enforce gender equality for all countries.

More research: Further data and research on this topic can be found at the Our World in Data topic page on Women’s Rights .

Additional charts

• Men and married women have equal ownership rights to property
• Law mandates equal remuneration for females and males for work of equal value
• Married women are required by law to obey their husbands

Target 5.2 End all violence against and exploitation of women and girls

Sdg indicator 5.2.1 violence against women from an intimate partner.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.2.1 is the “proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age” in the UN SDG framework .

Data shown for this indicator is the share of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years or older who experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner in the last year. Data related to psychological violence is not currently available.

Target: By 2030 “eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls.” 1

SDG Indicator 5.2.2 Violence against women from persons other than an intimate partner

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.2.2 is the “proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence” in the UN SDG framework .

While some country-specific data exists, internationally comparable data is not yet available for this indicator.

No data for this indicator

We are currently not aware of data for this indicator. You can notify us of available data for this indicator via our feedback form .

Target 5.3 Eliminate forced marriages and genital mutilation

Sdg indicator 5.3.1 women married before age 15 or 18.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.3.1 is the “proportion of women aged 20–24 years who were married or in a union before age 15 and before age 18” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations for women aged 20-24 years married by age 15 (first chart) and women aged 20-24 years married before age 18 (second chart).

Target: “Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation” by 2030.

More research: Further data and research on this topic can be found at the Our World in Data topic pages on Women’s Rights and Violence Against Children and Children’s Rights .

• Child marriage prohibited or invalidated

SDG Indicator 5.3.2 Female genital mutilation/cutting

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.3.2 is the “proportion of girls and women aged 15–49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting, by age” in the UN SDG framework .

This is measured as the share of women aged 15-49 years old who have gone through partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons.

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualization.

Target 5.4 Value unpaid care and promote shared domestic responsibilities

Sdg indicator 5.4.1 time spent on unpaid domestic and care work.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.4.1 is the “proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location” in the UN SDG framework .

This is shown here in the interactive visualizations as the average share of the day men and women spend on unpaid domestic and care work (first chart), the time spent on unpaid care and domestic work by men and women in urban and rural areas (second chart), and the share of the day women spend on unpaid domestic and care work (third chart).

Target: By 2030 “recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work, and promote shared responsibility within the household and family.” 2

More research: Further data and research on this topic can be found at the Our World in Data topic pages on Women’s Rights , Women's Employment and Working Hours .

Target 5.5 Ensure full participation in leadership and decision-making

Sdg indicator 5.5.1 women in political positions.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.5.1 is the “proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments and (b) local governments” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations for the share of parliamentary seats (first chart), elected seats in local government (second chart), and national ministerial positions (third chart) held by women in a given year.

Target: By 2030 “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.”

SDG Indicator 5.5.2 Women in managerial positions

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.5.2 is the “proportion of women in managerial positions” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations as the share of middle or senior management positions filled by a woman (first chart). The second chart shows a related measure, percentage of firms with a woman as the top manager.

More research: Further data and research on this topic can be found at the Our World in Data topic page on Women’s Rights and Women's Employment .

Target 5.6 Universal access to reproductive rights and health

Sdg indicator 5.6.1 women decision-making on contraceptive use and healthcare.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.6.1 is the “proportion of women aged 15–49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care” in the UN SDG framework .

This is shown here as the percentage of women aged 15-49 years old that are married or in union who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations and reproductive healthcare.

Only women who answer "yes" to the following three conditions are considered to make their own informed decisions: can say no to sexual intercourse with their husband or partner if they do not want; decide on use of contraception; and decide on their own healthcare.

Target: By 2030 “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” 3

• Share of women using modern contraceptive methods
• Share of women using contraceptives
• Unmet need for contraception among married women of reproductive age

SDG Indicator 5.6.2 Guarantee of equal access to sexual and reproductive health care

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.6.2 is the “number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education” in the UN SDG framework .

The interactive visualization shows the extent to which a given country has laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education. The score for each country is calculated based on 13 components, including access to maternity care and contraception. This measure focuses only on the presence of laws and regulations, not the extent of their implementation.

More research: Further data and research on this topic can be found at the Our World in Data topic page on Women’s Rights and Global Health .

• Share of women using any contraceptive methods
• Unmet need for contraception

Target 5.a Equal rights to economic resources, property ownership and financial services

Sdg indicator 5.a.1 female land rights or ownership.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.a.1 is the “(a) proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations. Data for indicator 5.a.1(a) is shown in the first chart, and data for indicator 5.a.1(b) is shown in the second chart.

Target: By 2030 “undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property.” 4

More research: Further data and research on this topic can be found at the Our World in Data topic pages on Women’s Rights and Economic Inequality by Gender .

SDG Indicator 5.a.2 Equal rights to land ownership

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.a.2 is the “proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control” in the UN SDG framework .

This is measured on the basis of whether a given country's legal framework guarantees women's equal rights to land ownership. Data for this indicator is shown in the first chart in the interactive visualizations, along with a related measure for land ownership differences between men and women (second chart).

Target 5.b Promote empowerment of women through technology

Sdg indicator 5.b.1 mobile telephone ownership.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.b.1 is the “proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown as the share of women and men who own a mobile telephone.

Target: By 2030 “enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women.”

There is no defined target level for this indicator.

Target 5.c Adopt and strengthen policies and enforceable legislation for gender equality

Sdg indicator 5.c.1 systems to track gender equality.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 5.c.1 is the “proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment” in the UN SDG framework .

This indicator is measured as whether a given country has systems in place to track and make publicly available information about budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. This definition does not reflect the extent or quality of spending on gender equality and women’s empowerment programs.

Target: By 2030 “adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality.” 5

Full text: “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.”

Full text: “Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate.”

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

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

Full text:”Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.”

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Fact Sheet: National Strategy on Gender Equity and   Equality

The Biden-Harris Administration issues first-ever national gender strategy to advance the full participation of all people – including women and girls – in the United States and around the world.

[Click here to read the Gender Strategy Report] President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that advancing gender equity and equality is fundamental to every individual’s economic security, safety, health, and ability to exercise their most basic rights.  It is also essential to economic growth and development, democracy and political stability, and the security of nations across the globe.  Ensuring that all people, regardless of gender, have the opportunity to realize their full potential is, therefore, both a moral and strategic imperative. Yet no country in the world has achieved gender equality—and we are at an inflection point.  The COVID-19 pandemic has fueled a health crisis, an economic crisis, and a caregiving crisis that have magnified the challenges that women and girls, especially women and girls of color, have long faced.  It has also exacerbated a “shadow pandemic” of gender-based violence in the United States and around the world.  These overlapping crises have underscored that, for far too long, the status quo has left too many behind. This moment demands that we build back better.  It requires that we acknowledge and address longstanding gender discrimination and the systemic barriers to full participation that have held back women and girls.  And it requires that we bring the talent and potential of all people to bear to face the challenges of our time.  That’s why the Biden-Harris Administration established the White House Gender Policy Council, charged with leading the development of the first-ever National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, which sets forth an aspirational vision and a comprehensive agenda to advance gender equity and equality in domestic and foreign policy—and demonstrates that families, communities, and nations around the world stand to benefit.

The strategy identifies ten interconnected priorities: 1) economic security; 2) gender-based violence; 3) health; 4) education; 5) justice and immigration; 6) human rights and equality under the law; 7) security and humanitarian relief; 8) climate change; 9) science and technology; and 10) democracy, participation, and leadership.  These priorities are inherently linked and must be tackled in concert. The strategy also adopts an intersectional approach that considers the barriers and challenges faced by those who experience intersecting and compounding forms of discrimination and bias related to gender, race, and other factors, including sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and socioeconomic status.  This includes addressing discrimination and bias faced by Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American people, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and other people of color.   Strategic priorities include:   Improving economic security. As we recover from the pandemic, we have the opportunity to build an economy that works for women and their families.  To build back better, we will:

• Ensure that people have equal access to good jobs, including by addressing persistent gender discrimination and systemic barriers to full workforce participation. 
• Invest in care infrastructure and care workers to help rebuild the economy and lower costs for working families. 
• Dismantle the barriers to equal opportunity in education that undermine the ability to compete on a level playing field, recognizing that education affects future economy security.

Preventing and responding to gender-based violence.  Gender-based violence is endemic in homes, schools, workplaces, the military, communities, and online—and far too often a hallmark of conflict and humanitarian crises.  It exacts tremendous costs on the safety, health and economic security of survivors and their families.  To prevent and response to gender-based violence, we will:

• Work to eliminate gender-based violence wherever it occurs by developing and strengthening national and global laws and policies, investing in comprehensive services for survivors, and increasing prevention efforts. 
• Address sexual violence in conflict settings; the elevated risk of violence facing women human rights defenders, activists, and politicians; human trafficking both at home and abroad; and the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous people. 
• Promote the safety and fair treatment of all people in the justice and immigration systems.

Increasing access to health care.  Health care is a right—not a privilege.  All people deserve access to high-quality, affordable health care, regardless of their zip code, income, ethnicity, race, or any other factor.  To protect, improve, and expand access to health care, we will:

• Build on the historic work of the Affordable Care Act and continue to expand and improve health care globally. 
• Defend the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion in the United States, established in Roe v. Wade, and promote access to sexual and reproductive health and rights both at home and abroad. 
• Address the pernicious effects of health inequity, including by addressing the maternal mortality crisis in the United States, which has a disproportionate impact on Black and Native American women, and by reducing maternal mortality and morbidity abroad.

Advancing democracy, rights and full participation.  Supporting women’s and girls’ full participation in social, economic, civic, and political life—and ensuring they are represented at the tables where decisions are made—is essential to progress in every other area and a precondition to advancing strong and sustainable democracies.  To advance democracy, rights, and full participation, we will:

• Work to advance gender equity and equality in the law and ensure that rights on paper are fully implemented in practice.  
• Work towards gender parity and diversity in leadership roles, including in peace processes, national security and defense, global health and humanitarian efforts, and in the private sector. 
• Promote the leadership of women and girls in addressing the challenge of climate change and seek to close gender gaps in STEM fields so that women and girls can shape the workforce of the future. 

Realizing this bold vision is a government-wide responsibility that cuts across the work of the Biden-Harris Administration in both domestic and foreign affairs.  Implementing this strategy will require the leadership of every White House office and executive agency.  This strategy is not just words on paper; it is a roadmap to deliver results for the American people and our partners around the world. And it builds on the work the Biden-Harris Administration has already done to advance gender equity and equality at home and abroad.  Through the American Rescue Plan, we have provided immediate relief to women and families, fully vaccinating over two-thirds of eligible Americans, reopening schools, providing direct payments to individuals, investing in domestic violence and sexual assault prevention and services, and helping child care providers keep their doors open.  The American Rescue Plan also expanded the Child Tax Credit, distributing monthly payments to tens of millions of American families covering over 60 million children.  Building on the American Rescue Plan, the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal and Build Back Better Agenda are once-in-a-generation investments to support America’s working families to rebuild the economy and support women and families.  Among its many transformative investments, the budget framework calls for: cutting taxes for middle class families with children, investing in the care economy and the care workforce, and lowering health care costs.  To advance economic security for women and girls globally, we have established a Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund, which supports efforts to address the impact that COVID-19, climate change, conflict, and crisis have on the economic security of women and their families.  And we have restored America’s leadership on the rights of women and girls on the world stage. We have also taken action to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, including through the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the Military and by directing the Department of Education to review Title IX regulations, guidance, and policies to ensure students receive an education free from sexual violence.  We continue working with Congress on meaningful legislative action, including through championing the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which passed the House in March with bipartisan support, and signing into law the Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act. And we have committed to updating and strengthening our strategy to combat gender-based violence around the world. To advance women’s health around the world, the Biden-Harris Administration has revoked the Global Gag Rule and reinstated funding to the UNFPA.  In the United States, the Administration has called for historic investments to respond to the maternal mortality crisis.  The President also launched a whole-of-government effort to respond to the recent Texas law which blatantly violates women’s constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion under Roe v. Wade .  

To inform our ongoing and future efforts to advance gender equity and equality at home and abroad, the strategy calls for continued accountability, consultation, and engagement as we work towards our collective vision for gender equity and equality at home and abroad.  Its implementation will guide strategic planning and budgeting, policy and program development, measurement and data, and management and training.  We look forward to partnering with Congress, local, state, Tribal, and territorial governments, civil society, the private sector, foreign governments, and multilateral institutions to drive progress towards the objectives outlined in this strategy.  In doing so, we will advance economic growth, health and safety, and the security of our nation and the world.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutional Discrimination in HR Policy

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

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

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

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

Personal Discrimination in HR-Related Decision-Making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Discrimination in HR Enactment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Reduce Gender Discrimination in Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Organizational Decision Makers’ Sexism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Remote Work
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

MIT SMR ’s fall 2024 issue highlights the need for personal and organizational resilience amid global uncertainty.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

Assignments Are Critical Tools to Achieve Workplace Gender Equity

Work assignments can be a powerful means of propelling employees’ growth but — unless managed deliberately — they can also undermine efforts to build a diverse workforce..

• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Organizational Behavior

Facing unprecedented levels of employee burnout and historic quit rates , how can companies lead with a model that attracts and retains talent? This period of transition, and the lessons learned from the pandemic, offer organizations a unique opportunity to improve and refine their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies. 1 It is imperative that leaders consider the landscape of work assignments at their companies as a foundation for greater workforce equity.

“Assignments” can comprise work tasks, activities, or projects. Scholars have long identified a gender gap in access to the kinds of assignments — large in scope, highly visible, and strategically important — that are seen as essential to career advancement. An estimated 70% of leadership development occurs through experiential learning , especially the kind offered by these challenging stretch assignments.

Get Updates on Transformative Leadership

Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up

Privacy Policy

Yet women are largely overlooked for challenging work assignments. One factor is that women typically have fewer ties to influential decision makers who connect people to assignment opportunities . Biased performance evaluations also may play a role, with women seeing no gains in their performance scores for the very behaviors (such as “taking charge”) for which men are rewarded. 2 One study showed how promotability depends on having had challenging past projects — setting up a vicious cycle in which women never get ahead. 3 Women of color, tasked with the additional burden of “fitting in” at predominantly White organizations, may find channels to career-advancing work blocked entirely. 4

Historically, companies have not tracked assignment processes. In one 2010 report, when HR leaders were asked the percentage of “business-critical/important” assignments held by women, the top two responses were “1% to 10%” and “not measured.” Both career-advancing work and meaningful work are cornerstones of positive professional experiences. But leaders may know little about who has access to significant assignments, or they may be unaware of how a lack of access drives burnout, turnover, and dwindling diversity on the leadership bench. 5

These many unknowns about assignments drive an information gap that grows riskier as countless organizations head into new hybrid work arrangements. To quantify this risk, our team at the Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab ran a study of assignments, using data that many companies collect and managers review at least yearly: employee engagement survey (EES) data.

About the Authors

Erin Macke is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Stanford University and a graduate research assistant at Stanford’s VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab. Gabriela Gall Rosa is a research data analyst at the VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab. Shannon Gilmartin is a senior research scholar at the VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab. Caroline Simard is managing director of the VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab.

1. “ Hybrid Working Is Here to Stay Post-Pandemic: Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom ,” Bloomberg TV, Dec. 30, 2020, video, 6:34, www.bloomberg.com; and J.M. Barrero, N. Bloom, and S.J. Davis, “ Why Working From Home Will Stick ,” working paper 28731, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 2021.

2. S.J. Correll, K.R. Weisshaar, A.T. Wynn, et al., “Inside the Black Box of Organizational Life: The Gendered Language of Performance Assessment,” American Sociological Review 85, no. 6 (December 2020): 1022-1050.

3. I.E. De Pater, A.E.M. van Vianen, M.N. Bechtoldt, et al., “Employees’ Challenging Job Experiences and Supervisors’ Evaluations of Promotability,” Personnel Psychology 62, no. 2 (May 2009): 297-325.

4. T.M. Melaku, “You Don’t Look Like a Lawyer: Black Women and Systemic Gendered Racism,” (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019).

5. P.T.Y. Preenan, I.E. De Pater, A.E. van Vianen, et al., “Managing Voluntary Turnover Through Challenging Assignments,” Group & Organization Management 36, no.3 (April 2011): 3088-344; C. Maslach and M. Leiter, “Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 3 (June 2008): 489-512; and J.M. Hoobler, G. Lemmon, and S.J. Wayne, “Women’s Managerial Aspirations: An Organizational Development Perspective,” Journal of Management 40, no. 3 (March 2014): 703-730.

6. This EES data was collected in 2015 from over 4,000 respondents at this company.

7. For this analysis, we calculated predicted probabilities (57% for women and 67% for men, p<0.0001) from a logistic regression in which the dependent measure, agreement with “having opportunities,” is dichotomized into levels of agreement: “great/very great” and “very little/some/moderate.” A series of ordinary least squares regressions on a nondichotomized dependent measure yielded similar results.

8. L. Babcock, M.P. Recalde, L. Vesterlund, et al., “Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks With Low Promotability,” American Economic Review 107, no. 3 (March 2017): 714-747.

9. It is worth noting that we could not conduct our case study analyses by employees’ race and ethnicity because this information was not collected on the company’s EES, so our analyses cannot speak to both gender and race assignment inequities. While legal and privacy considerations in different geographies may constrain what can be measured, companies should strive to examine such data by race and ethnicity, geography, and other social dimensions based on their diversity strategies.

Acknowledgments

More like this, add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.