Formal and Informal Discrimination Against Women At Work: The Role of Gender Stereotypes

When asked to think about a hostile environment for women in the workplace, many of us would first envision overt instances of sexual harassment or blatant employment discrimination. These associations are certainly not astonishing: even in an age in which these behaviors are denounced and in large part illegal, such organizational misconduct seems almost commonplace. There have been many high-profile allegations of discrimination leveled against organizations within the last several years (Morris, Bonamici & Neering, 2005). For example, Morgan Stanley’s investment banking business recently paid out $54 million to over 300 female employees who claim to have been denied pay and promotions equal to those received by their male colleagues. Additionally, 1.6 million women who are currently, or were formerly, employed at Wal-Mart are eligible to participate in what is poised to become the largest-ever civil rights lawsuit: like the women of Morgan Stanley, they claim to have been victims of sex discrimination (Greenhouse, 2004). In fact, according to statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there has been no systematic decline over the last 12 years in the number of discrimination lawsuits filed, or the amount of monetary damages awarded to the plaintiffs of these suits (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004)

Footsteps I would like to follow? How gender quotas affect the acceptance of women leaders as role models and inspirations for leadership

This research examines how the method of selecting women leaders affects other women’s leadership interest. The results of three experiments (N = 1,015) indicated that only when women leaders were selected due to merit, not quota-based policies, did they boost female participants’ interest in a leadership position. These reactions were mediated by perceptions of the woman leader’s deservingness of her position (Studies 1–3) and consequent acceptance as a role model (Studies 2 and 3). Accordingly, success information validating quota-based selected leaders’ competence provided a boost in leadership interest equal to that of merit-based selected leaders (Study 2). For male participants, quota but not merit-based selected women leaders lowered interest in leadership due to their pessimistic assessment of the probability of being selected (Study 1). These results suggest that a wise implementation of quota regulations includes validating women’s competence so they are perceived as deserving of their leader roles and can thus serve as inspiring role models

The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes: A Current Look at Men’s and Women’s Characterizations of Others and Themselves

We used a multi-dimensional framework to assess current stereotypes of men and women. Specifically, we sought to determine (1) how men and women are characterized by male and female raters, (2) how men and women characterize themselves, and (3) the degree of convergence between self-characterizations and charcterizations of one’s gender group. In an experimental study, 628 U.S. male and female raters described men, women, or themselves on scales representing multiple dimensions of the two defining features of gender stereotypes, agency and communality: assertiveness, independence, instrumental competence, leadership competence (agency dimensions), and concern for others, sociability and emotional sensitivity (communality dimensions). Results indicated that stereotypes about communality persist and were equally prevalent for male and female raters, but agency characterizations were more complex. Male raters generally descibed women as being less agentic than men and as less agentic than female raters described them. However, female raters differentiated among agency dimensions and described women as less assertive than men but as equally independent and leadership competent. Both male and female raters rated men and women equally high on instrumental competence. Gender stereotypes were also evident in self-characterizations, with female raters rating themselves as less agentic than male raters and male raters rating themselves as less communal than female raters, although there were exceptions (no differences in instrumental competence, independence, and sociability self-ratings for men and women). Comparisons of self-ratings and ratings of men and women in general indicated that women tended to characterize themselves in more stereotypic terms – as less assertive and less competent in leadership – than they characterized others in their gender group. Men, in contrast, characterized themselves in less stereotypic terms – as more communal. Overall, our results show that a focus on facets of agency and communality can provide deeper insights about stereotype content than a focus on overall agency and communality

Sex discrimination

Sex discrimination refers to the unfavorable treatment of men and women because of their sex. It is most often pertinent to employment situations. Critical to the occurrence of discrimination are gender stereotypes and the gender-type of the occupation. When a job is viewed as male-typed, women are expected to be ill-equipped to perform it successfully. There is some debate as to whether or not similar consequences are observed for men when the job is female in gender-type. In each case, the biased judgments and resulting discriminatory practices stem from the perceived mismatch between what women and men are thought to be like and the requirements deemed necessary for success in gender-incongruent jobs

Breaking the glass ceiling: for one and all?

The current research challenges the assumption that the presence of women in leadership positions will automatically “break the glass ceiling” for other women. We contend that it is not just a female leader’s presence, but also her performance, that influences evaluations of subsequent female candidates for leadership positions. We argue that the continued scarcity and perceived mismatch of women with high-level leadership increases gender salience, promoting perceptions of within-group similarity and fostering an evaluative generalization from the performance of a female leader to the evaluations of another, individual woman. In 5 studies, we demonstrate that the effect of exposure to a female leader on another woman’s evaluations and leadership opportunities depends on whether she is successful or unsuccessful (Study 1) and whether she confirms or disconfirms stereotype-based expectations about women’s leadership abilities (Study 2). Supporting the role of gender salience and shared group membership in the process, we show that this effect occurs only between women in male gender-typed leadership roles: Evaluative generalization does not occur between women in contexts that are not strongly male in gender type (Study 3) and is not observed between men in male-typed leadership (Study 4). We also explore whether there is evaluative generalization between male leaders in a female-typed context (Study 5). Our results suggest that overcoming gender imbalances in leadership may not be as simple as targeted placement, and that having women in high places should not induce complacency about the elimination of gender bias

Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions

Results of 2 experimental studies in which job incumbents were said to be applying for promotions to traditionally male positions demonstrated bias against mothers in competence expectations and in screening recommendations. This bias occurred regardless of whether the research participants were students (Study 1) or working people (Study 2). Although anticipated job commitment, achievement striving, and dependability were rated as generally lower for parents than for nonparents, anticipated competence was uniquely low for mothers. Mediational analyses indicated that, as predicted, negativity in competence expectations, not anticipated job commitment or achievement striving, promoted the motherhood bias in screening recommendations; expected deficits in agentic behaviors, not in dependability, were found to fuel these competence expectations. These findings suggest that motherhood can indeed hinder the career advancement of women and that it is the heightened association with gender stereotypes that occurs when women are mothers that is the source of motherhood's potentially adverse consequences